blarge- POI or AP

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you both made a call, and each of you thinks his call was undeniably right and you each wish to stick with it at all cost, then without a doubt you have a blarge. This is spelled out in the now famous case 4.19.8 Situation C, even though I could never have come to this conclusion by reading the rule book. But there is nothing in this case which says that a preliminary signal is binding in making this call.

I'm still trying to figure out if you actually believe they wrote a case play for two officials who are beligerently sticking to their calls even after getting together.

Or did they write it for the situation when two officials report their fouls in complete ignorance of each other?

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule is if both officials give preliminary signals, you cannot defer (in spite of what jar says above) to your partner. In NFHS and NCAA-M, being a grown up means going by the prescribed mechanic and calling the double foul.

I'm sure at our "get together" either I or my partner will learn that the other had the better look. A preliminary signal is no more a binding irreversible ruling than an out of bounds call.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule is if both officials give preliminary signals, you cannot defer (in spite of what jar says above) to your partner. In NFHS and NCAA-M, being a grown up means going by the prescribed mechanic and calling the double foul.

Of course you can defer. There is no such thing as a binding irreversible signal. The only call that counts is the one reported to the table. Find me a rule that says a preliminary signal is binding and irreversible. You can't. There isnt one.

If preliminary signals now are binding and non-reversible, what do you do with the jump/foul double whistle or the out of bounds call that your partner comes over and tells you there was a tip. I guess we shoot the free throw for the foul then go to the AP arrow for the jump? Uh, no. Or we tell the coach, "sorry coach, I know my partner saw the tip, but I pointed to blue and that signal is irreversible." No.

This idea of an irreversible preliminary signal is absurd.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by cdaref

Of course you can defer. There is no such thing as a binding irreversible signal. The only call that counts is the one reported to the table. Find me a rule that says a preliminary signal is binding and irreversible. You can't. There isnt one.

If preliminary signals now are binding and non-reversible, what do you do with the jump/foul double whistle or the out of bounds call that your partner comes over and tells you there was a tip. I guess we shoot the free throw for the foul then go to the AP arrow for the jump? Uh, no. Or we tell the coach, "sorry coach, I know my partner saw the tip, but I pointed to blue and that signal is irreversible." No.

This idea of an irreversible preliminary signal is absurd.

Then please explain 4.19.8 Sit. C.

[cdaref]

I will concede, of course, that I have no freaking clue how 4.19.8(C) can be possible with just A1 and B1. I could see, perhaps, A1 charges into B1, while at the exact same time secondary defender B2 blocks A1.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Then please explain 4.19.8 Sit. C.

I can't explain it.

BUT I can say that it does not mandate that preliminary signals are irreversible. I think the only way to understand 4.19.8(C) is to think of the situation where both officials steadfastly insist their call is correct and there is no other way to resolve it. Otherwise it doesnt make sense.

What I refuse to do is read into an already whacky case play an even whackier new RULE: that preliminary signals now are mandatory and unchangable and there cannot be any deferring. I dont think 4.19.8(C) dictates that.

[cdaref]

Even the official's manual calls the signal on the floor a "preliminary signal."

2.4.2(B)(4): "lower the foul signal [fist] and indicate the nature of the foul by giving a preliminary signal."

THEN

2.4.2(C)(2): "If the situation necesitates a discussion with the other officials, have the discussion before reporting to the table so that the correct call and information is conveyed to the table."

That right there says after the preliminary signal the officials can get together and discuss the call to make sure the CORRECT CALL is made.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I could see, perhaps, A1 charges into B1, while at the exact same time secondary defender B2 blocks A1.

That is not a double foul, that is a simultaneous foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I can't explain it.

BUT I can say that it does not mandate that preliminary signals are irreversible. I think the only way to understand 4.19.8(C) is to think of the situation where both officials steadfastly insist their call is correct and there is no other way to resolve it. Otherwise it doesnt make sense.

What I refuse to do is read into an already whacky case play an even whackier new RULE: that preliminary signals now are mandatory and unchangable and there cannot be any deferring. I dont think 4.19.8(C) dictates that.

Then you're reading this case play differently than virtually every high school and college assigner and rules interpreter I've ever heard, read, or seen. If that was their intent, they'd have written the case play like the NCAAW, telling the officials to get together and make a decision.

This is the only case where the prelims become binding, and the reasoning is simple even if it is "suspect."

[cdaref]

Of course, 2.4.8 which talks about double whistles also says the officials should get together to "determine the correct call" and that the decision on the final call should be left to the primary area official.

So I just dont see any rule support for this idea that preliminary signals are irrevocable and unchangable. In fact, the manuals are to teh contrary--officials should get together and make changes as needed to make sure the call reported to the table is correct.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I will concede, of course, that I have no freaking clue how 4.19.8(C) can be possible with just A1 and B1. I could see, perhaps, A1 charges into B1, while at the exact same time secondary defender B2 blocks A1.

The reason this case exists, in my opinion, is because the officials failed to follow the proper mechanics by both signaling a different foul. The proper mechanic is for the primary official only to make the call, or if there is a possibility of a double whistle, then neither official makes a signal until they've made eye contact, or even gotten together, and have one official come out with the call. Because that did not happen, the Fed. has specified that both fouls shall be reported.

It has nothing to do with "how can there be a player-control and blocking foul on the same play?", or "preliminary signals are all binding". It has to do with those officials not following the proper procedure in a certain instance, so there is a specific way to handle that instance. That also happens in the correctable error section, and the other thread where we're discussing definite information in whether to put time back on the clock. In every one of these situations, the common thread is an official's error (floor officials and/or table crew). And, in each case, we can argue all day long whether we think the ruling is "fair" or proper, but in every case we don't get to make that decision; we can only follow the rules. And, in every case, the best way to avoid having to make any of those rulings is for the officials to follow proper mechanics and procedures.

[cdaref]

In the Official's Manual, in the pregame they print in the back, it mentions "double whistles with different calls" in the "Communication" section of the pregame--along with the help calls, like tips, out of bounds, 3 vs 2 pointer, etc. If they meant double whistles with different calls to mean double fouls, then why put it in the Communications part. If the calls are irreversible, there is nothing to change or talk about, just both go over and report both fouls and have a double foul.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The reason this case exists, in my opinion, is because the officials failed to follow the proper mechanics by both signaling a different foul. The proper mechanic is for the primary official only to make the call, or if there is a possibility of a double whistle, then neither official makes a signal until they've made eye contact, or even gotten together, and have one official come out with the call. Because that did not happen, the Fed. has specified that both fouls shall be reported.

It has nothing to do with "how can there be a player-control and blocking foul on the same play?", or "preliminary signals are all binding". It has to do with those officials not following the proper procedure in a certain instance, so there is a specific way to handle that instance. That also happens in the correctable error section, and the other thread where we're discussing definite information in whether to put time back on the clock. In every one of these situations, the common thread is an official's error (floor officials and/or table crew). And, in each case, we can argue all day long whether we think the ruling is "fair" or proper, but in every case we don't get to make that decision; we can only follow the rules. And, in every case, the best way to avoid having to make any of those rulings is for the officials to follow proper mechanics and procedures.

M&M, I hear you. The problem only arises when the non-primary official not only comes up with a fist but also makes a signal that is different from what the other official has.

But why does that mean we cant get together?

If you are right and the two different signals means you have to have a double foul, then what do you do when someone calls out of bounds when its not their area and indicates Home ball when the primary indicates Visitor. I've seen that more (at lower levels with ball watching) than I've seen a blarge. If you have to have a double foul just because two officials gave different signals and you cant get together and figure it out, then what permits us to do it with out of bounds plays?

I think we have to read that wierd case play in its narrowest form that does the least damage to the rest of the established rules. That is how you do statutory construction in the law.

[cdaref]

The only sane way to read 4.19.8(C) in my opinion is to read it as follows: both officials have different calls (admittedly, this shouldnt happen, off primary should hold his call even if he has a double whistle) and there is no way to reconcile which call takes precedence. In that situation, and that situation alone, it is a double foul. Nothing about it should be read to say we cant get together, like the Official's Manual says, share information, and conclude "you are right, you had the better angle, B1 was still moving and wasnt set, your look was better than mine, we are going block."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by cdaref

The only sane way to read 4.19.8(C) in my opinion is to read it as follows: both officials have different calls (admittedly, this shouldnt happen, off primary should hold his call even if he has a double whistle) and there is no way to reconcile which call takes precedence. In that situation, and that situation alone, it is a double foul. Nothing about it should be read to say we cant get together, like the Official's Manual says, share information, and conclude "you are right, you had the better angle, B1 was still moving and wasnt set, your look was better than mine, we are going block."

Your interpretation does violence to the plain language of the case. You've twisted it so that it agrees with you.