The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   admitting to a coach you made a mistake (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/54166-admitting-coach-you-made-mistake.html)

sing19702000 Tue Jul 28, 2009 05:46pm

admitting to a coach you made a mistake
 
I have general question about dealing with coaches. If you admit to a coach that you have made a mistake on a call or no call, he responds by saying that that mistake is in a critical time of the game and he yells at you very loudly to show you up. How do you respond to that or do you respond at all.

DonInKansas Tue Jul 28, 2009 05:55pm

whack!!!!

jdmara Tue Jul 28, 2009 06:20pm

Definitely a HTBT situation. You have to know when or if you should admit a mistake to a coach. If he is being boisterous and making a scene you have to know when to draw the line. If he crosses the line, he has earned a technical.

-Josh

BillyMac Tue Jul 28, 2009 06:35pm

Communication with coaches
 
General Techniques:
If you’ve missed a call or made a mistake; admit it. This technique can only be used sparingly, perhaps once a game.

Specific Communication Examples: Coach has a good point and might be right.
“You’ve got a good point and might be right about that play.”
“You might be right, that’s one we’ll talk about at halftime/intermission/the next time out.”
“You might be right; I may not have had the best angle on that play.”

Source: Topeka (Kansas) Officials Association

fiasco Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 617551)
General Techniques:
If you’ve missed a call or made a mistake; admit it. This technique can only be used sparingly, perhaps once a game.

Specific Communication Examples: Coach has a good point and might be right.
“You’ve got a good point and might be right about that play.”
“You might be right, that’s one we’ll talk about at halftime/intermission/the next time out.”
“You might be right; I may not have had the best angle on that play.”

Source: Topeka (Kansas) Officials Association

For the record, "you might be right" is not admitting a mistake.

"You're right, coach. I missed that call" is admitting a mistake.

It's dumb to teach someone they should admit their mistake and then teach them how to get around admitting it. :rolleyes:

JRutledge Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:40pm

The only time you should admit a mistake is when the mistake is obvious or a clear rules violation. If it is simply a judgment call and it was close, you should not have to admit a mistake. If you are constantly admitting to mistakes, then something has to change.

It is hard to tell in this situation if a T was warranted. It would really depend on who you are talking and how they are talking to you. I can see how this could lead to a T, but it is not automatic by any means. Most coaches should realize you messed up and move on. If they do not, then you have to take care of business or walk away. Then that coach would never get my ear again if they cannot be professional.

Peace

jdmara Wed Jul 29, 2009 07:17am

I've found a little trick over the years of officiating. If the coach is upset with the call, you know you've blew it, and it's not a good time to admit to that mistake directly...Take a round about approach.

Back up to the coach (as he is, I'm sure "talking" with you) and ask him, "Coach/Bill/etc..., what did you see on that play?" You've put him in the position to vent and it probably seems to him that he is getting somewhere. "I saw something a little different; however, you may be right. I'll work the angles better to see it next time."

I've always received position feedback from coaches. Never has a coach exploded with the situation and everyone tends to end up "happy"

-Josh

tomegun Wed Jul 29, 2009 07:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmara (Post 617627)
"I saw something a little different; however, you may be right. I'll work the angles better to see it next time."
-Josh

What if you had a good angle and saw the play correctly? If you know you missed a call, what is wrong with cutting to the chase and saying so?

I don't like "I'll work the angles better to see it next time" just like I don't like a pregame saying something like "We are going to work hard for you."

Just my opinion.

mbyron Wed Jul 29, 2009 07:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 617611)
The only time you should admit a mistake is when the mistake is obvious or a clear rules violation. If it is simply a judgment call and it was close, you should not have to admit a mistake.

I agree with this.

In my second year, I was working a JV game. A1 went up for a shot, B1 get his hand on the ball, and A1 came down with it. Tweet! "Travel!" Damn, I knew it was wrong instantly.

The coach wasn't happy, and as I came up the floor on the table side, I heard him shouting "That was a jump ball! That was a jump ball!" I looked at him, tapped my chest to signal "my bad," and said "you're right, coach."

He look flummoxed for a moment, and then said, "uh, thank you." Not a peep for the rest of the night.

just another ref Wed Jul 29, 2009 08:07am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 617633)
I agree with this.

In my second year, I was working a JV game. A1 went up for a shot, B1 get his hand on the ball, and A1 came down with it. Tweet! "Travel!" Damn, I knew it was wrong instantly.


If you knew instantly, why not change the call? Some may say once the signal is made it is too late, but as you describe the play I say making a quick change is certainly more acceptable than letting a call stand that you and everybody else know is wrong.

TheOracle Wed Jul 29, 2009 09:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sing19702000 (Post 617543)
I have general question about dealing with coaches. If you admit to a coach that you have made a mistake on a call or no call, he responds by saying that that mistake is in a critical time of the game and he yells at you very loudly to show you up. How do you respond to that or do you respond at all.

"You think I missed it on purpose? (or you think I am happy about it) That is the last thing you say to me tonight." Anything further from him is a T.

Adam Wed Jul 29, 2009 09:30am

If done at the right time and rarely, it can work well. "Coach, I'm sure you're right but I got straight lined."

IMO, it works best for no-calls.

Indianaref Wed Jul 29, 2009 09:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 617644)
If you knew instantly, why not change the call? Some may say once the signal is made it is too late, but as you describe the play I say making a quick change is certainly more acceptable than letting a call stand that you and everybody else know is wrong.

Is this called a teachable moment? I am absolutely certain that the mbryon of today would do such.

Adam Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 617644)
If you knew instantly, why not change the call? Some may say once the signal is made it is too late, but as you describe the play I say making a quick change is certainly more acceptable than letting a call stand that you and everybody else know is wrong.

No one here would say the initial signal makes it too late, JAR. This is not the blarge discussion, which is the only time a preliminary signal is binding. Strawmen do burn rather quickly, though, don't they?

Adam Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indianaref (Post 617659)
Is this called a teachable moment? I am absolutely certain that the mbryon of today would do such.

I would assume so.

Mark Padgett Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:19am

Since I've never made a mistake, I really can't help. :D

OK, seriously - I think it depends on the context of how the coach reacts. If you make a call and the coach immediately has a demonstrative reaction and it's a coach that has been relatively straight forward in the past, you probably should take pause and ask yourself if you may have erred. If so, and you have time to correct the call, you should consider doing so. If this is what happens, you probably won't have to say anything to the coach.

However, if you realize you made a mistake after it's too late to change anything and the mistake was on a rules interpretation, not a judgment call, you might want to say to the coach something like, "I know, I know, we can discuss it later". Then do so at the next break.

Also, if your realization of the mistake happens quickly, whether the coach complains or not, confer with your partner. It's much easier to explain that he or she had a better angle to see the play and because of that you're changing your initial call than to say you blew it.

Remember, judgment is always subjective and your ability to call the game properly will come with experience.

Mregor Wed Jul 29, 2009 08:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOracle (Post 617652)
"You think I missed it on purpose? (or you think I am happy about it) That is the last thing you say to me tonight." Anything further from him is a T.

I don't like this at all. The part about missing it on purpose is baiting him. Do you really want him to answer that question?

In the OP, he admitted a mistake and the coach wouldn't let it go. If that's me, I'm going to let him vent a while as it was my mistake and then I'm telling him we are moving on. If he doesn't want to move on and refuses to let go, I'm walking away. What he does when I walk away will dictate if he needs to be stuck or not.

Mregor

Mark Padgett Wed Jul 29, 2009 09:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mregor (Post 617822)
The part about missing it on purpose is baiting him.

But that's what you do with a flounder. :p

Berkut Thu Jul 30, 2009 08:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mregor (Post 617822)
I don't like this at all. The part about missing it on purpose is baiting him. Do you really want him to answer that question?

I've heard this before, and I am not sure what it means - "baiting him".

Is there something I can say that if he responds inappropriately to then his response is no longer owned by him, but by me? I am not sure I accept this suggestion that something *I* say somehow forces another adult to say something he should not, and therefore it is no longer his fault, but mine.

mbyron Thu Jul 30, 2009 08:27am

It's not about force, it's about attitude. Sarcasm rarely plays well with emotionally wrought people, and we know that going in. It's just not funny to them and usually occasions (I won't say 'causes') an inappropriate response, and that's almost always counter-productive.

Answer questions, don't discuss. Be honest but concise. Do your job.

Adam Thu Jul 30, 2009 08:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkut (Post 617897)
I've heard this before, and I am not sure what it means - "baiting him".

Is there something I can say that if he responds inappropriately to then his response is no longer owned by him, but by me? I am not sure I accept this suggestion that something *I* say somehow forces another adult to say something he should not, and therefore it is no longer his fault, but mine.

While he certainly owns his response regardless, officials have been known to play a part in this.

Coach: "that's 9 fouls to 2"
Ref: "Are you accusing me of cheating?"
Coach: "Now that you mention it, yes."
Whack!

Oracle's advice may not be directly baiting him, but it's certainly a leading question. Or, at the very least, it could be taken that way by a coach who is caught up in the game.

M&M Guy Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 617906)
While he certainly owns his response regardless, officials have been known to play a part in this.

Coach: "that's 9 fouls to 2"
Ref: "Are you accusing me of cheating?"
Coach: "Now that you mention it, yes."
Whack!

Oracle's advice may not be directly baiting him, but it's certainly a leading question. Or, at the very least, it could be taken that way by a coach who is caught up in the game.

I actually don't have a problem with asking that question in your scenario. We all know most coaches say this to imply we are not calling the game fairly and we need to make a couple of boarderline calls in their favor now to even things up. This question removes any subtlety from the situation, and most coaches understand if they take the conversation any further, it becomes an easy T.

There could be some people skills needed to determine how and when to use this approach. In some situations, simply ignoring the comment is best. For others, this question serves as the warning that we are done playing word games.

Adam Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:41am

I can see your point, but I'm not sure it applies to the OP. I think when, where, and with whom are very important factors for this. If you're acknowledging a mistake, I don't think it's generally best to take this approach. The whole point of the conversation is to ease tensions by letting the coach know you are aware you screwed up; I've never had that go bad when I've done it. Then again, I don't recall doing that with the same coach twice. And usually, it was a matter of getting straight lined, or acknowledging to the winning coach in a blowout that I may have missed a borderline travel on the losing team. (the expected thing around here whether I agree or not)

Berkut Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 617900)
It's not about force, it's about attitude. Sarcasm rarely plays well with emotionally wrought people, and we know that going in. It's just not funny to them and usually occasions (I won't say 'causes') an inappropriate response, and that's almost always counter-productive.

Answer questions, don't discuss. Be honest but concise. Do your job.

I agree with all this - and I certainly own my own response to the coach, and have my own responsibility to be professional and not escalate the situation.

I just don't like the idea that we might "bait" someone, I guess - like it is our job to make sure they don't have a reason to say something they should not. At the end of the day, they are responsible for what they say, as I am responsible for what I say. While I am aware that I can say things that will anger them, that doesn't in any way, IMO, release them to go ahead and say something they should not.

And the idea seems, to me, to simply give them an excuse for going off - they can just claim "Hey, that official baited me!". I guess it comes back to one of my pet peeves - the idea that our job includes trying to convince adults to act like adults.

Anyway, not a huge deal, I suppose. Such is life - sometimes we have to do what even if we don't like it.

M&M Guy Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 617942)
I can see your point, but I'm not sure it applies to the OP. I think when, where, and with whom are very important factors for this. If you're acknowledging a mistake, I don't think it's generally best to take this approach. The whole point of the conversation is to ease tensions by letting the coach know you are aware you screwed up; I've never had that go bad when I've done it. Then again, I don't recall doing that with the same coach twice. And usually, it was a matter of getting straight lined, or acknowledging to the winning coach in a blowout that I may have missed a borderline travel on the losing team. (the expected thing around here whether I agree or not)

I was only repsonding to the narrow subject of whether you were "baiting" a coach in regards to the "fouls are 9 to 2" comment. But you are right, if the reason the fouls are 9 to 2 is because you and your crew have screwed up 5 or 6 of those calls, then I wouldn't recommend answering in that manner either. :D

In terms of the OP, I agree with you that occasionally admitting an obvious mistake can go a long way towards a good coach/official relationship. And, as others have already mentioned, it must be used vary sparingly.

Berkut Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:55am

I think the one time I said something like that when perhaps I shouldn't was very similar to the posited scenario. Some kind of lopsided foul count (I don't remember specifically) and the coach said something like that.

Coach: "Jeff, come on, we are at 7-2 now!"
Me: "Yeah coach, you really should tell your guys to stop fouling".

It actually went over pretty well, but I wish I hadn't said it. He actually laughed, but you never know with something like that. I normally would not say something like that, but it just kind of felt "right" at the particular moment.

Was I "baiting" him?

Ch1town Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 617950)
In terms of the OP, I agree with you that occasionally admitting an obvious mistake can go a long way towards a good coach/official relationship. And, as others have already mentioned, it must be used vary sparingly.


And please try not to have that conversation with under 2 minutes to go in a competitive game :)

"Only once & never a gamer" is what I've heard.

Ch1town Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkut (Post 617953)
I think the one time I said something like that when perhaps I shouldn't was very similar to the posited scenario. Some kind of lopsided foul count (I don't remember specifically) and the coach said something like that.

Coach: "Jeff, come on, we are at 7-2 now!"
Me: "Yeah coach, you really should tell your guys to stop fouling".

It actually went over pretty well, but I wish I hadn't said it. He actually laughed, but you never know with something like that. I normally would not say something like that, but it just kind of felt "right" at the particular moment.

Was I "baiting" him?

Absolutely not!
Coach made a statement that you weren't required to respond to & you addressed his "fact" with a "fact" of your own. I like that response!

"I just call them, I don't count them coach" is a good one too, if you choose to address it.

M&M Guy Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkut (Post 617953)
I think the one time I said something like that when perhaps I shouldn't was very similar to the posited scenario. Some kind of lopsided foul count (I don't remember specifically) and the coach said something like that.

Coach: "Jeff, come on, we are at 7-2 now!"
Me: "Yeah coach, you really should tell your guys to stop fouling".

It actually went over pretty well, but I wish I hadn't said it. He actually laughed, but you never know with something like that. I normally would not say something like that, but it just kind of felt "right" at the particular moment.

Was I "baiting" him?

Apparently not. But, depending on the situation, you could've been. Clear enough? :D

That's where your people skills come in - you are finding out what works for you. What you say, how you say it, and when you say it are all important. What you said may have worked at that particular moment in that game, but in a different situation with the same coach may blow up. Also, some officials with their personalities might be able to get away with saying things that you or I cannot.

I had a short conversation with a coach once after a travel call against his team late in the first half:

Coach: "Jim, I know that was a travel, and I'm not arguing that, but did you know you've called 7 travels against us, and only 2 against them?"

Me: "?" (Then I glance up at the scoreboard)

Me: "Coach, I see the fouls are 6-0 in your favor; do you want us to even those up as well?"

Coach: "(...grumble...)No."

Not a word about counts the rest of the game. Now, this was a coach who is known to be a little excitable, so I was taking a chance. But, in this case, it worked - he was trying to get a subtle point across, and I got a subtle point back to him. I haven't used that line any other time, and I may never use it again. But it just worked at that particular moment.

tomegun Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06pm

:rolleyes:

I don't understand the infatuation with having "lines" to give to coaches. Why not communicate with a coach the same you would any other person? Smart remarks will result in bad situations and we already have emotions running wild (it is an emotional game).

VACaller Thu Jul 30, 2009 01:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 617962)
Apparently not. But, depending on the situation, you could've been. Clear enough? :D

That's where your people skills come in - you are finding out what works for you. What you say, how you say it, and when you say it are all important. What you said may have worked at that particular moment in that game, but in a different situation with the same coach may blow up. Also, some officials with their personalities might be able to get away with saying things that you or I cannot.

I had a short conversation with a coach once after a travel call against his team late in the first half:

Coach: "Jim, I know that was a travel, and I'm not arguing that, but did you know you've called 7 travels against us, and only 2 against them?"

Me: "?" (Then I glance up at the scoreboard)

Me: "Coach, I see the fouls are 6-0 in your favor; do you want us to even those up as well?"

Coach: "(...grumble...)No."

Not a word about counts the rest of the game. Now, this was a coach who is known to be a little excitable, so I was taking a chance. But, in this case, it worked - he was trying to get a subtle point across, and I got a subtle point back to him. I haven't used that line any other time, and I may never use it again. But it just worked at that particular moment.

I've had similar conversations with coaches about fouls and the score. If he's losing and says "the foul count is 8-1", I told one coach that "no where in the rule book does it say the foul count should be even." If he's winning I may say "the score's not even either, would you like us to change that?" This has been done with coaches that I know dish it out and take it well! They normally just smile!

Mark Padgett Thu Jul 30, 2009 01:32pm

I had a coach tell me once that the foul count was 12-3. I told him I was surprised. He asked me why I was surprised. I told him I was surprised he could count to 12 without taking his shoes off. He thought it was funny. Oh yeah - I knew the guy pretty well.

M&M Guy Thu Jul 30, 2009 01:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomegun (Post 617998)
:rolleyes:

I don't understand the infatuation with having "lines" to give to coaches. Why not communicate with a coach the same you would any other person? Smart remarks will result in bad situations and we already have emotions running wild (it is an emotional game).

For me, it's not an infatuation with a good "line", but how to communicate what I want to communicate in a very short time. For the most part, I try to be as professional as possible, but I can be kind of smart-a$$ sometimes, (even when dealing with any other person), and it works only if the person I'm talking to knows me well enough. Otherwise, I have to find a way to communicate a couple of thoughts at once while running past a coach, or in the short time during a FT attempt. That's where some of these "lines" come in handy.

For example, what I want to say: "You know what coach, I'm not sure we're watching the same game. You keep begging for calls that my partners and I have not seen. But, being the nice guy I am, I will still acknowledge your complaints, and perhaps there's a chance we've actually missed something, so we'll work harder to see if we can see the same things you do."

What I actually say: "I hear you coach." Same point gets communincated, but in a lot shorter time.

just another ref Thu Jul 30, 2009 02:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 617660)
No one here would say the initial signal makes it too late, JAR. This is not the blarge discussion, which is the only time a preliminary signal is binding. Strawmen do burn rather quickly, though, don't they?


This, as always, is debatable.


Subtlety is often wasted on me. I don't really know what this means.

Adam Thu Jul 30, 2009 02:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618088)
This, as always, is debatable.

Only by you. :)
Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618088)
Subtlety is often wasted on me. I don't really know what this means.

I apologize, as I was being a bit snippy. My point was, no one here has ever said that prelim signals can't be changed (except in the case of the blarge).

Essentially, you built a strawman argument and burned it down quickly.

jdmara Thu Jul 30, 2009 02:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmara (Post 617627)
I've found a little trick over the years of officiating. If the coach is upset with the call, you know you've blew it, and it's not a good time to admit to that mistake directly...Take a round about approach.

Back up to the coach (as he is, I'm sure "talking" with you) and ask him, "Coach/Bill/etc..., what did you see on that play?" You've put him in the position to vent and it probably seems to him that he is getting somewhere. "I saw something a little different; however, you may be right. I'll work the angles better to see it next time."

I've always received position feedback from coaches. Never has a coach exploded with the situation and everyone tends to end up "happy"

-Josh

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomegun (Post 617630)
What if you had a good angle and saw the play correctly? If you know you missed a call, what is wrong with cutting to the chase and saying so?

I don't like "I'll work the angles better to see it next time" just like I don't like a pregame saying something like "We are going to work hard for you."

Just my opinion.

tomegun-

We all know there are times you can admit mistakes and times you can't. If I blew a call and I believe the coach is going to react favorably to that admission, then you're darn right I'll say, "Coach, I missed that one. I apoligize." But if I'm not on best terms with the coach because he thinks I'm biased or one of my partners, his team is getting stomped, etc...I am going to put him in the situation to explain himself while he vents. As a lot of us know, coaches just like to vent.

-Josh

Hugh Refner Thu Jul 30, 2009 02:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 618101)
..... prelim signals can't be changed (except in the case of the blarge).

Where in the NF Officials Manual does it say this? I realize it would be bad to do so, but I'm not sure you can state "can't" as an absolute without any exception pertaining to this.

Adam Thu Jul 30, 2009 02:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner (Post 618104)
Where in the NF Officials Manual does it say this? I realize it would be bad to do so, but I'm not sure you can state "can't" as an absolute without any exception pertaining to this.

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.

just another ref Thu Jul 30, 2009 02:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 618105)
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.

Raymond Thu Jul 30, 2009 02:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmara (Post 618102)
tomegun-

We all know there are times you can admit mistakes and times you can't. If I blew a call and I believe the coach is going to react favorably to that admission, then you're darn right I'll say, "Coach, I missed that one. I apoligize." But if I'm not on best terms with the coach because he thinks I'm biased or one of my partners, his team is getting stomped, etc...I am going to put him in the situation to explain himself while he vents. As a lot of us know, coaches just like to vent.

-Josh

I think, rather "I know", Tomegun was referring to the verbiage "I'll work harder to get a better angle". It implies 1) that you are not already attempting to do so; and 2) what's to say you didn't already have the best angle and you still just missed the play. It's something that should go unsaid as it can open up a Pandora's Box of comments in response from the coach, or in other words, it's too much verbiage to give to the coach.

Short, simple statements work best, IMO. "Maybe I missed that one", "Maybe I didn't get the best look on that play", "I didn't see that play the same way you did".

For outright flub-ups: "Coach, you're right, I blew that call"

mbyron Thu Jul 30, 2009 03:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618107)
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? :D

Adam Thu Jul 30, 2009 03:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618107)
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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 03:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 618113)
OK, I'll ask: why on earth would anyone in his right mind deny that signaling a foul constitutes calling it? :D

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.

fiasco Thu Jul 30, 2009 03:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 618116)
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.

Ch1town Thu Jul 30, 2009 03:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 618126)
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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 04:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town (Post 618135)
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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 04:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 618105)
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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 05:11pm

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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 05:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 618143)
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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 06:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618145)
... 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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 06:40pm

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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 07:48pm

The Infamous Blarge ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618107)
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 Thu Jul 30, 2009 09:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 618150)
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 Fri Jul 31, 2009 07:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618145)
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 Fri Jul 31, 2009 08:33am

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 Fri Jul 31, 2009 08:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 618167)
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 Fri Jul 31, 2009 08:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrojanHorse (Post 618151)
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 Fri Jul 31, 2009 09:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 618332)
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:

Quote:

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 Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:32pm

Quote:

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.

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 Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 618350)
........ it is a blarge as soon as the two opposing signals are given...not when it is reported.

From another thread:

Quote:

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 Sat Aug 01, 2009 06:35am

Quote:

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.

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.

mbyron Sat Aug 01, 2009 06:39am

Quote:

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?

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 Sat Aug 01, 2009 06:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsturdy5 (Post 618334)
If he did not, he would not be on the sideline to see the end result.

Is this normal for most officials on this board? I have had a reputation in the past for giving Ts freely :D, but I don't say things like this to coaches. I think it is somewhat threatening and it backs the official in the corner. If the coach doesn't stop, the official must either do something or lose credibility. "That is enough coach" with two hands held low (2009 version of the stop sign :eek:) is enough for me. Especially in a two-man game where I don't have time to go back and forth with a coach.

Mbyron, we are thinking alike.

tomegun Sat Aug 01, 2009 06:44am

Quote:

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. ;)

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.

mbyron Sat Aug 01, 2009 06:58am

Quote:

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.

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:

just another ref Sat Aug 01, 2009 09:28am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 618372)
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

dsturdy5 Sat Aug 01, 2009 03:31pm

Quote:

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.

Thanks for the feedback. I will file this away (as I do so much I read on this site).

I understand what you mean by "threatening" and putting myself into a tougher position. I have not given a ton of T's in my high school officiating career. Nor have I felt I have needed to upon reflection so I don't have a reputation or anything (that I'm aware of :cool:)

I think I was caught up in the fact that I knew I screwed up so obviously in front of a packed gym and continually heard it from the coach. Sort of a heat of the moment type of thing I guess.

Mark Padgett Sat Aug 01, 2009 03:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsturdy5 (Post 618448)
I have not given a ton of T's in my high school officiating career.

Have you been out sick, or what? :confused:

tomegun Sun Aug 02, 2009 05:03pm

Quote:

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:

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.

JRutledge Sun Aug 02, 2009 06:43pm

Quote:

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.

I can only speak for myself on what works for me. I will not nod just for the purpose to make everyone know I agree with the call of my partner, but I will nod when talking to a coach to get them to understand what I am saying to them. But that is a little different than doing so after a call you are not participating in. I do nod if my partner and I have a double whistle and I only do it to acknowledge that we have the same thing or that someone has the call. Usually this is followed by some verbal exchange or comment about who is going to the table.

Peace

walter Sun Aug 02, 2009 06:50pm

Quote:

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

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 Sun Aug 02, 2009 07:50pm

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

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 Sun Aug 02, 2009 08:11pm

Quote:

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?

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

Adam Sun Aug 02, 2009 09:37pm

Quote:

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.

Well then. :(

Camron Rust Mon Aug 03, 2009 01:39am

Quote:

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?

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 Mon Aug 03, 2009 02:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 618534)
I can only speak for myself on what works for me. I will not nod just for the purpose to make everyone know I agree with the call of my partner, but I will nod when talking to a coach to get them to understand what I am saying to them. But that is a little different than doing so after a call you are not participating in. I do nod if my partner and I have a double whistle and I only do it to acknowledge that we have the same thing or that someone has the call. Usually this is followed by some verbal exchange or comment about who is going to the table.

Peace

No, I'm not talking about what you do in practice. I'm talking about a double whistle between partners and one feels obligated to nod as a way of telling everyone he/she had the same thing even if they didn't. It just sounds silly to me. Have I ever nodded on a basketball court? Yes. Will I nod just because I have a double whistle with my partner? Not a chance. If it is something that comes naturally, I will do it. I will leave the acting to someone else.

tomegun Mon Aug 03, 2009 02:23am

Quote:

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?

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?

JRutledge Mon Aug 03, 2009 02:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomegun (Post 618568)
No, I'm not talking about what you do in practice. I'm talking about a double whistle between partners and one feels obligated to nod as a way of telling everyone he/she had the same thing even if they didn't. It just sounds silly to me. Have I ever nodded on a basketball court? Yes. Will I nod just because I have a double whistle with my partner? Not a chance. If it is something that comes naturally, I will do it. I will leave the acting to someone else.

I do not do anything for acting purposes; I do what I do for communication purposes. Because many times a partner cannot hear me, I might do something to get them to understand me. Honestly I never really thought of it that much until I read this here. I only do something to communicate better, not to put on an act or do something artificial. That being said, I have no problem with your position or your reasoning. Not everything one person does works for another person. That is the nature of what we do.

Peace

walter Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:13am

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 Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by walter (Post 618781)
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.

Ch1town Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by walter (Post 618781)
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 Tue Aug 04, 2009 01:22pm

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 Tue Aug 04, 2009 09:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town (Post 618785)
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.

Ch1town Wed Aug 05, 2009 08:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 618906)
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.

I think the play in your example is more of the T & Slot following the SDF principles than waiting for the L to get it.

I agree with the rest of your thoughts.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1