Simultaneous charge and block

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, I was asking a serious question. You have a double whistle. You are certain it is PC, but correctly make no preliminary signal. Your partner quickly signals block. Do you report a double foul, or yield the call to your partner?

I'm sorry, but it's irrelevant. The answer is obvious.

If I want the double foul (because my partner reached across the court and made the wrong call in front of me), I'll quickly signal and "sell" the PC. Then we'll go double.

Otherwise (99.999999999834% of the time), I'll defer to my partner (who made the quick sell) and we'll discuss it later.

I'm tempted to call this a dumb question, to be honest, because I think you knew the answer before you asked.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If I want the double foul (because my partner reached across the court and made the wrong call in front of me), I'll quickly signal and "sell" the PC. Then we'll go double.

Otherwise (99.999999999834% of the time), I'll defer to my partner (who made the quick sell) and we'll discuss it later.

I'm tempted to call this a dumb question, to be honest, because I think you knew the answer before you asked.

I didn't know the answer. I am trying to understand exactly how everybody sees the rule in question. I find it interesting that you use the word sell in your description. You will quickly sell your call to counteract your partner's sale only if you feel he was poaching in your primary? You will yield the call if it takes place in a borderline coverage area, even if you're certain your call was correct? This, to me, is even worse than the double foul, if it means that a quick, incorrect signal should take precedence over a more deliberate consideration of the play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

(99.999999999834%)

Wow. That's better than Ivory soap's 99.44%. I didn't think you could go higher than that real life.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I didn't know the answer. I am trying to understand exactly how everybody sees the rule in question. I find it interesting that you use the word sell in your description. You will quickly sell your call to counteract your partner's sale only if you feel he was poaching in your primary? You will yield the call if it takes place in a borderline coverage area, even if you're certain your call was correct? This, to me, is even worse than the double foul, if it means that a quick, incorrect signal should take precedence over a more deliberate consideration of the play.

Let me rephrase, if I think he's 120% wrong; I'll do what I can to mitigate the damage.

If I'm not 122% sure he's wrong, I'm going to defer and assume he saw something I missed.

I mentioned my area because it's the scenario I can most easily imagine me doing something so stupid as initiating a blarge.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me rephrase, if I think he's 120% wrong; I'll do what I can to mitigate the damage.

If I'm not 122% sure he's wrong, I'm going to defer and assume he saw something I missed.

I mentioned my area because it's the scenario I can most easily imagine me doing something so stupid as initiating a blarge.

This is what bothers me about this case. You feel compelled to suffer in silence, even if you think your partner is 119% wrong, simply because he signaled first. I simply do not believe this was the intent when this case was written.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is what bothers me about this case. You feel compelled to suffer in silence, even if you think your partner is 119% wrong, simply because he signaled first. I simply do not believe this was the intent when this case was written.

In a typical game, I think that my partner may make an incorrect call a few times, as I'm sure he thinks the same for some of my calls. Sometimes we will discuss this on the court, as with an out of bounds call that might have been slightly tipped, or with a violation before a foul, or a foul before a violation, but most of the time I just assume that he had a different, and possibly better, look than me, as I hope that he thinks of my calls, and we play on. On some occasions, if it's important enough, I will say to my partner, "So what did see on that play?", during halftime, or after the game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I am trying to understand exactly how everybody sees the rule in question.

The same way we all saw it the last half-dozen times it's been discussed this season.

I'm sure if something new / different / definitive had been issued by any of the governing bodies, it would have been reported.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is what bothers me about this case. You feel compelled to suffer in silence, even if you think your partner is 119% wrong, simply because he signaled first. I simply do not believe this was the intent when this case was written.

So, how do you do it when your partner signals a block while your hand is up and you're thinking it was a PC?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, how do you do it when your partner signals a block while your hand is up and you're thinking it was a PC?

If we both have any kind of foul signal we put our heads together and come out with one call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If we both have any kind of foul signal we put our heads together and come out with one call.

So, if he comes up with a block, and you hold your prelim until discussion; you're going to try to convince him of a PC?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, if he comes up with a block, and you hold your prelim until discussion; you're going to try to convince him of a PC?

Conceivably, yes.

[Adam]

Okay, then.