admitting to a coach you made a mistake

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

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

[walter]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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.

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

The purpose they serve has to do with not only the tradition of the game, but some fouls could be on either the offense or defense and I doubt that it would be acceptable to not make a block/charge call by only reporting this to the table. But in all other situations I have no problem with the elimination or a modification of using preliminary signals in many cases. Not all, but many.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

They tell the rest of the crew what is coming next. They communicate the call to the teams....so they can make substitutions if necessary since they may not have time if they wait until it is reported it. It doesn't keep everyone in suspense on tough plays giving some the chance to think that the pleading of the coaches/players caused you to change your call on the way to the table.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

On several occasions, I have seen this and it could have been avoided if the officials had simply called in their area. Seeing entire plays, without anticipating, is one thing that will help avoid this situation as well as understanding situations where you may have to come out of your primary to get something. Didn't this whole thing start when two D1 officials were two stubborn to give a call up, at least one of which was spraying calls all over the court?

[walter]

Another little tidbit from camps was the discussion that a double whistle can be either one official reaching and getting something or a "confirmation whistle, especially down the stretch". In fact one camp stressed that in close games down the stretch, "confirmation whistles" are good things. Don't necessarily agree but wanted to know if anyone else heard this at camp?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by walter

Another little tidbit from camps was the discussion that a double whistle can be either one official reaching and getting something or a "confirmation whistle, especially down the stretch". In fact one camp stressed that in close games down the stretch, "confirmation whistles" are good things. Don't necessarily agree but wanted to know if anyone else heard this at camp?

The concept that double whistls can be good on close calls is something I've heard. I've never heard the idea proposed that purposefully blowing you whistle as some sort of confirmation, though. Strikes me as something like nodding.

Originally Posted by walter

Another little tidbit from camps was the discussion that a double whistle can be either one official reaching and getting something or a "confirmation whistle, especially down the stretch". In fact one camp stressed that in close games down the stretch, "confirmation whistles" are good things. Don't necessarily agree but wanted to know if anyone else heard this at camp?

Double whistles on plays to the basket (at most points in the game NOT just EOG situations) are a good thing in 3 person games. It solidifies the call & negates most pushback as 2 officials called it, so perception-wise, it must be right
In the paint, a triple whistle isn't a bad thing either...

[walter]

It was described pretty much in the same vein as the nod. The clinicians also pointed out that on plays to the basket, a double whistle can be a good thing. All the camps were 3 person camps.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Double whistles on plays to the basket (at most points in the game NOT just EOG situations) are a good thing in 3 person games. It solidifies the call & negates most pushback as 2 officials called it, so perception-wise, it must be right
In the paint, a triple whistle isn't a bad thing either...

I understand the concept of the "confirmation" whistle but I would say steer clear of doing this just to help your partner. If you saw the contact then blow, no problem.
That being said, double whistles are good at times but if you watch NBA games, which I'm sure most don't! Ha they have a lot of single whistles on obvious fouls and that's because they are very aware of their partners and only have whistles when they are absolutely certain the official who "should" be blowing doesn't and then they come in with their whistle. Its not a secondary whistle because it is more than likely a dual coverage area. For example, a player who gets obviously bodychecked on the way to the hole, the trail and slot are aware that it is headed to the hoop and will allow the lead to blow and if for whatever reason, he doesn't react then the slot or trail will react accordingly.

I would much rather have a double whistle on a difficult play than on an obvious foul. anyone can call a blatantly obvious foul from anywhere on the floor but knowing when and when not to have double whistles is a true art of officiating, imo.