In this case, if the official is later convinced that there was no timeout request, granting a timeout is not in the best interest of the game. IOW, the accidental whistle produces an unfavorable result, and should be dealt with accordingly.

What about 5.8.3 Situation E a. ? The whistle was blown improperly. The timeout was granted, when it should not have been. Why is this not an accidental whistle? Is this not evidence that every whistle blown improperly is not an "accidental whistle."

Are there any rule definitions of "best interest of the game", "Improper whistle", or "unfavorable result"?

In 5.8.3. Sit E (a), there was a TO request. It was granted. Therefore it must be taken. It was improperly granted, but must be granted nonetheless.

In 5.8.3. Sit E (b), there was no TO request, therefore there was no TO to grant. Acoording to the case, they call that an accidental whistle.

So, there is apparently a difference between an improper whistle and an accidental whistle. In (a), you live with an "improper" whistle. In (b), after an accidental whistle you resume play using the POI rules. In the OP, there was also no call to make.

Did you ever take into account the rules committee might purposely be making it "unfair" to make sure officials don't do these things? You have the same arguments regarding the "blarge" - we should do something different outside the rules in order to make things "fair". But that isn't how the rules are written. It would seem "fair" in (a) to not allow the TO and use POI, but that's not how it is written. In (b) it seems fair to resume where it should've been, had the whistle not blown, but that's not how it's written. In the case of the dreaded "blarge", it would seem fair to allow only one call to stand, whether it's the primary official's call, the obvious call, etc., but that's not how the rule is written. I can probably think of "fairer" ways to handle correctable errors, but I'm limited to how the rules are written, not by how I think it should happen.

In each of these cases, the absolute <B>best</B> way to avoid making any of these rulings: never have a correctable error, and don't blow the whistle improperly or accidentally. :)

If your partner sees a crash during rebounding action, the ball is rolling loose, he blows his whistle, puts his fist in the air....then realizes 2 teammates slammed into each other, is this a bad call or an accidental whistle?

Or, how about this: A1 has the ball in the front court, A1's pass bounces off A2 and starts rolling towards the backcourt. A1 grabs the ball with one foot in the front court, the other foot in the air. A1 looks down, sees the line, and can't help but put the second foot on the line. The official sees that, blows the whistle and signals the backcourt violation. Except then the official notices the line A1 stepped on was a volleyball line in the front court, not the division line.

Bad call, or accidental whistle?

I vote for accidental whistle.

How about both, a bad call & IW... but seriously I'm following the procedure for an IW in both instances. Just hope I'm not the calling official :eek:

My point exactly.

In the OP, I choose to live with the improper whistle.

There is wiggle room in the wording regarding a blarge. If you want to reopen that, I'd be glad to contribute.

Try this one. I am trail, two whistle. Player fumbles the ball at the top to the key, then struggles to recover. This happens right in front of me. As the ball is rolling on the floor, partner, from the lead, with all the other traffic in between, whistles and signal a travel.

Did I almost puke? yes Did I stop the game, confer with partner, explain the traveling rule and ask for an accidental whistle declaration? no

Would you?

Change this one slightly. A1 secures the rebound. A2 crashes into him. Official sees the crash, whistles for a foul. A split second later, official realizes his mistake. A split second after that, A1 falls to the floor. What do you call here?

This one seems more closely related to my original situation. You have a fubar. By rule, you have to give it back to A as they had possession when the whistle stopped play. Who are you going to call the foul on? What can it be other than an accidental whistle?

And you would choose to go against the POI rule and case play.

There's only "wiggle room" in your mind, not in the rule. And no, it's pretty much a closed discussion for me. :)

First, are you 100% sure there was not a travel before the ball came loose? Are you 100% sure they did not see the play? If so, then:

- Confer with partner as to what their call was? Yes.
- Explain the traveling rule? No.
- Give my partner the information that the player did not control of the ball? Absolutely.
- Give them the opportunity to explain their call, or give them the chance to declare an accidental whistle rather than penalize a team that should not be penalized? Yep.
- Check to see who would've picked up the ball if the whistle had not blown? Nope.
- Tried to figure out what's fair? Nope.

Why wouldn't you, as a crew, get the call right if you are 100% sure the call was blown?

Ok, I'm officially done with this discussion. We obviously disagree with the spirit and intent of the POI rule involving accidental whistles. Maybe the committee will adopt the NCAA definition for additional clarity. Maybe it doesn't need any additional clarity. ;)

Words Of Wisdom ...
 

Amen.

Yeah. In our dreams.

Just like the NFHS, I don't have a definition for an inadvertant/accidental whistle. And if I have to start defining the rules in the middle of a game, then the rules makers have done us all a disservice. Do you have a precise definition and exhaustive list of what is/is not an inadvertant/accidental whistle? If so, I'd love to see it. Maybe it's like the old description of pornography...I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

As for Nevada's post, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a mis-communication on a TO request between an official and a coach could/should be an inadvertant/accidental whistle. But the fact that NFHS has to identify "some" quirky situations in which an inadvertant/accidental whistle would be the correct call just confirms the point that you would only make such a call if there was no specific rule application to make. In the OP there is a rule application...badly applied, but a rule applied nonetheless. And you can't (or so it seems to me) get into the habit of correcting every badly applied rule with an inadvertant/accidental whistle crutch.

But my original concern was the statement made very early in this thread that "by rule" we have an inadvertant/accidental whistle. How can there be such a thing when there is no specific inadvertant/accidental whistle rule in the rule book, only some applications to exceptional situations in the case book?

To me the OP is a case where partner (and probably I) have to suck it up and explain what he did to the coaches and move forward. Like none of us has ever blown a call before...bet partner owns that rule forever forward.

I could live with this as an inadvertant/accidental whistle. There was no foul since teammates were involved, so there was no actual rule to apply, unless one of the teammates traveled or otherwise violated because of the contact. Assuming there was no violation, this is one of those quirky situations where you fix the non-rule applied screw-up with an inadvertant/accidental whistle.

I'm okay with this being an accidental whistle.

One more: A1 secures a rebound and heaves a length of the court pass to A2, who has released on a break. No other player from either team is in that end of the court. The pass is too long, and bounces just inside the end line. Official anticipates the inevitable and blows the whistle while the ball is in the air. A2, however, has exceptional speed. As the whistle sounds, he leaps. He manages to get a hand on the ball and tap it back.............into the back of the backboard. How many here would call this an accidental whistle and give the ball back to A?