admitting to a coach you made a mistake

[just another ref]

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.

4.19.8 C But it doesn't say signals, it says calls.

The two terms are not interchangeable if you ask me, which no one ever does.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C But it doesn't say signals, it says calls.

The two terms are not interchangeable if you ask me, which no one ever does.

OK, I'll ask: why on earth would anyone in his right mind deny that signaling a foul constitutes calling it?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, I'll ask: why on earth would anyone in his right mind deny that signaling a foul constitutes calling it?

Look in your book. It's called a "preliminary" signal. Preliminary connotates that it can be changed.

"Calling" a foul means to report the foul. This occurs at the table, not at the spot of the foul.

Originally Posted by fiasco

Look in your book. It's called a "preliminary" signal. Preliminary connotates that it can be changed.

"Calling" a foul means to report the foul. This occurs at the table, not at the spot of the foul.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C But it doesn't say signals, it says calls.

The two terms are not interchangeable if you ask me, which no one ever does.

We have, and here's the question that has been posed:
Are you suggesting this case play refers to both officials actually reporting the foul to the table? If it means something beyond the signal, what does it mean?

The options as I see them:
1. "calls" equals "signals" in this case.
2. "calls" means reporting the fouls.
3. "calls" means both officials refuse to back down.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We have, and here's the question that has been posed:
Are you suggesting this case play refers to both officials actually reporting the foul to the table? If it means something beyond the signal, what does it mean?

The options as I see them:
1. "calls" equals "signals" in this case.
2. "calls" means reporting the fouls.
3. "calls" means both officials refuse to back down.

Poor editing, IMO. Should read "signals." I don't think I've ever in my life witnessed two officials going to the table and intentionally reporting two different fouls on the same play.

[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)