Tough situation my partner put us in

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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 best way to avoid making any of these rulings: never have a correctable error, and don't blow the whistle improperly or accidentally.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, there is apparently a difference between an improper whistle and an accidental whistle.

My point exactly.

In (a), you live with an "improper" whistle.

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

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.

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I've learned it is always better to stick with the rules, no matter how much complaining happens as a result.

Amen.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Yeah. In our dreams.