Originally Posted by dsturdy5 (Post 618334)

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618355)

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?

Originally Posted by dsturdy5 (Post 618334)

If he did not, he would not be on the sideline to see the end result.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 618364)

So his recommended mechanic was: let L sell the call. As T or C, get in the habit of doing 2 things: (1) hold your signal on a double whistle, and (2) when your partner sells his call, nod vigorously, as if that's what you had too. ;)

Originally Posted by tomegun (Post 618367)

We were thinking alike on this one except for the nodding part. Are you serious about nodding vigorously? I'm simply not going to do this; it seems silly to me and could come off planned/fake.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 618372)

The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 618363)

1. That was not a good time to admit a mistake, as you discovered.

2. You were right to tell the coach to stop. Maybe even late.

3. You said that he "should focus on winning this game" -- I try never to tell coaches what they should do. After all, I don't want them to tell me what to do.

4. You threatened the coach ("If he did not, he would not be on the sideline..."). Threatening paints you into a corner and makes you seem to be a bully. You told him to stop, and he knows the consequences of continuing. That's sufficient.

Originally Posted by dsturdy5 (Post 618448)

I have not given a ton of T's in my high school officiating career.

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 618372)

Doesn't have to be vigorous. The clinician was making a point: T or C needs to go along with whatever L is selling. I'm sure the nodding is optional. :cool:

Originally Posted by tomegun (Post 618530)

OK, so now that you've said (typed) what someone told you, do you agree with the nodding part? Do you do it or plan on doing it?

I still think it is corny.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618379)

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618379)

T or C should go along with whatever the lead is selling, even if they strenuously disagree, just because the lead made the preliminary signal. Unless T or C had made a preliminary signal of their own, in which case they now can't go along with the lead, even if after reviewing it quickly, they were so inclined. I got one word for this.

Ridiculous

Originally Posted by walter (Post 618535)

At the four camps I attended this play was discussed quite a bit. All the clinicians, however, agreed on one common principal, if two different preliminaries are given on a block/charge situation, it is a double foul and both players are penalized. They all stressed that is why the T and C should do everything they can to refrain from giving a preliminary signal when there is a double whistle on these situations. They all agreed the prelim, if given, should come from the lead.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618536)

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618335)

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

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618536)

No matter who said it, it is still ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary. For those who do feel compelled to abide by this principle, you could eliminate preliminary signals altogether. What real purpose do they serve?