admitting to a coach you made a mistake

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Hmmmmm ~ glad you cleared that up, I was always under the impression that we "called" the foul at the spot & "reported" them to the table.

Agreed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Case book, my friend, and it's very specific. One official signals a charge, the other signals a block (thus it's a blarge). By rule (case), you must go with a double foul.

If someone doesn't do it first, I'll find the case play when I get home tonight.

Now, just to be the devils advocote here...

We all know that is possible for an official to come up with a signal that is not what they intended....visually indicates a charge while stating that is a block or vice versa. It doesn't happen often but it does happen and it is usually on a bang-bang play....not unlike the situations that lead to a blarge.

What if one official signals and states that he has a block while the other official signals a charge but yells out block (making a signal and statement that contradict)?

In the individual case, the official just eats a little crow and makes one call. Now, when it is complicated by a "blarge", does the official get to correct himself, knowing that he really meant to call what his parter was also calling and just simply came up with the wrong signal (imagine a foul that could not be mistaken but the offical just has a misfire in his motor control...defender flying into the side of the shooter knocking the shooter into the 3rd row).

[just another ref]

I agree that the call is made at the spot. However, I see nothing that undeniably binds the signal and the call. In any other case, we can say "Oops, I made the wrong signal. This is what I meant." Yet in this case be are required to stick with two calls when it is impossible for the two to happen at the same time.

Consider the following:

A1 drives on B1. B1 has good position all the way. A1 continues the drive and I anticipate a PC foul. At the last second, A1 makes a spectacular, Kobe Bryant like spin move and fools B1. B1 lunges to try to maintain his position, but is clearly late to the spot and commits a blocking foul. I ignore the travel, like they do on tv, and blow the whistle to reward the kid for his Sportscenter worthy move. Unfortunately, my hand failed to get the memo, and attaches itself to the back of my head. My partner is a better official than me, and whistles the foul and makes the correct signal. Now, according to the masses, we must enforce a double foul, because we are obligated by this preliminary signal, which in this case was bogus.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Now, just to be the devils advocote here...

We all know that is possible for an official to come of with a signal that is not what they intended....visually indicates a charge while stating that is a block or vice versa. It doesn't happen often but it does and it is usually on a bang-bang play....not unlike the situations that lead to a blarge.

What if one official signals and states that he has a block while the other official signals a charge but yells out block (making a signal and statement that contradict)?

In the individual case, the official just eats a little crow and makes one call. Now, when it is complicated by a "blarge", does the official get to correct himself, knowing that he really meant to call what his parter was also calling and just simply came up with the wrong signal (imagine a foul that could not be mistaken but the offical just has a misfire in his motor control...defender flying into the side of the shooter knocking the shooter into the 3rd row).

What he said.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... Yet in this case be are required to stick with two calls when it is impossible for the two to happen at the same time.

Don't be so fast to come to that conclusion as being absolute.

What are the two signals/calls we're talking about....
1. Block...unambiguous.
2. Player Control....ambiguous...could be a charge or any one of the other 4 types of fouls since the PC foul is just a foul committed by the player with the ball without respect to the type of foul.

So, just because one official comes up with a PC signal doesn't mean that it is a charge and that the situation is impossible. It could be two different and independent fouls.

One could have the defender for extending their knee into the dribbler (block) while the other has the dribbler for an push-off (illegal use of hands) into the defender's gut....two different points of contact and two different fouls....neither one that contradicts the other....both can be right. Now, we're back to determining which came first or calling a legitamate double foul.

[TrojanHorse]

From a coaches point of view, for me it would add creditability to an official if they admit mistake. Now, I do not want to hear that every time down the court, but I see nothing wrong with admission. Just be confident when speaking to the coach. Look the coach in the eye, say you blew the call, and move on..if the coach wants to make a big deal out of it, then that is on the coach.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8C

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is successful. RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try and the goal is scored. Play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-36)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Don't be so fast to come to that conclusion as being absolute.

What are the two signals/calls we're talking about....
1. Block...unambiguous.
2. Player Control....ambiguous...could be a charge or any one of the other 4 types of fouls since the PC foul is just a foul committed by the player with the ball without respect to the type of foul.

So, just because one official comes up with a PC signal doesn't mean that it is a charge and that the situation is impossible. It could be two different and independent fouls.

One could have the defender for extending their knee into the dribbler (block) while the other has the dribbler for an push-off (illegal use of hands) into the defender's gut....two different points of contact and two different fouls....neither one that contradicts the other....both can be right. Now, we're back to determining which came first or calling a legitamate double foul.

All the more reason why the signal is not binding.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I agree that the call is made at the spot. However, I see nothing that undeniably binds the signal and the call. In any other case, we can say "Oops, I made the wrong signal. This is what I meant." Yet in this case be are required to stick with two calls when it is impossible for the two to happen at the same time.

A blarge is not a situation in which one official mistakenly signals a block and the other correctly signals a charge (or vice versa).

What binds the signal and the call is the case play.

[FrankHtown]

Kind of reminds me of the story of an umpire in a Major league game back in the 50's...Bang Bang play at 3rd base...Umpire yells "SAFE" but gives the out signal. Umpire says "I know I called you safe, but 30,000 people here think you're out, so you're out."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

All the more reason why the signal is not binding.

So then can you explain to the rest of the class what exactly is binding in the case play?

[dsturdy5]

Originally Posted by TrojanHorse

From a coaches point of view, for me it would add creditability to an official if they admit mistake. Now, I do not want to hear that every time down the court, but I see nothing wrong with admission. Just be confident when speaking to the coach. Look the coach in the eye, say you blew the call, and move on..if the coach wants to make a big deal out of it, then that is on the coach.

I agree with this and I even called a coach on it.

This past winter I had a play as the lead in a two man crew. A-1 dribbled to his left, pulled up for a jumper, B-1, guarded it perfectly and was right on A-1's shooting hand. While in the air, A-1 drops the ball to the floor, B-1 never touched it. I froze. Absolutely froze. I knew it was a violation then, I know it now. I did not blow my whistle, raise my hand, scratch myself, nothing. Just stood there. B's coach threw a fit. If I thought I could have gotten away with a blocked/deflected shot, I would have but this was right in front of B's bench and the coach had an even better look then I did.

He screamed at me, "that's a double dribble! How could you miss that? He can't do that!"

Next dead ball, a timeout was called, I reported it and went over to B's coach as the throw-in was near his bench. I turned to him and in a voice only he and I could hear, I admitted I blew it. He replied with, "I don't care. That was a HUGE call in a game like this." I turned and began the throw-in procedure.

For the next trip or two, while his team was trailing, he would say "that was a huge no call" as I ran past his bench. Next chance I got I told him (in the same calm, quiet voice) the play was a long time ago in the scheme of the game, it is a close game, his team is playing great, and he should focus on winning this game with his players rather than something he cannot control. If he did not, he would not be on the sideline to see the end result. That seemed to calm him down. Of course, team A's coach now thought every call that went against his team was a "make up call" but my partner felt his wrath and ended up dealing with him.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So then can you explain to the rest of the class what exactly is binding in the case play?

I don't see that the case play is binding at all. I see it as one possible outcome on a double whistle.

You said it:

3. "calls" means both officials refuse to back down.

Signaling a foul, in and of itself means nothing. The important part is what gets reported. In the case play, like any double whistle, this would involve some communication between the two officials. Often this is nothing more than one official walking away from the call, yielding it to the other for whatever reason.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't see that the case play is binding at all. I see it as one possible outcome on a double whistle.

You said it:



Signaling a foul, in and of itself means nothing. The important part is what gets reported. In the case play, like any double whistle, this would involve some communication between the two officials. Often this is nothing more than one official walking away from the call, yielding it to the other for whatever reason.

I don't agree with that at all. Ignoring the case I previously presented where one official signaled differently than verbalized, it is a blarge as soon as the two opposing signals are given...not when it is reported. There is no discussion that can change the outcome from a double foul. If they realize they're not calling the same contact, then they can discuss it and determine which came first.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

........ it is a blarge as soon as the two opposing signals are given...not when it is reported.

From another thread:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

there was a double whistle. I couldn't hear it but the lead's arm went up at the same time as the center...hard to see, but take a close look. The lack of an immediate preliminary signal was because they were ensuring they didn't have a blarge.

Found this quote by you on the subject. I'm sure others have said more or less the same thing. This indicates that you think the preliminary (block/charge) signal is the key to the whole blarge mess. So if you go up with a fist and no prelim, but your partner immediately signals pc, does this mean you have the option of blarge or pc? If both of you go up with just a fist, with no prelim, but had intentions of making opposite calls, are you obligated to go with a double foul? If not, then why not?