admitting to a coach you made a mistake

[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.

[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?

[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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

No, you're not obligated to go with a double foul, because until you signal the requirements of the case play don't kick in.

At my clinic in June, the clinician gave this advice for blarges. Some crews hold their prelim on a double whistle and then let the official whose primary it is make the call. This guy suggested that it's often better to sell a call on a blarge, and if you're waiting you're not selling.

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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

[Adam]

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.

Well then.