blarge- POI or AP

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I wonder what Nevada would say on this

NFHS Rules:
Once two officials give conflicting foul signals on such a play, then the crew MUST go with a double personal foul and resume at the POI per Case Book 4.19.8 Situation C.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NFHS Rules:
Once two officials give conflicting foul signals on such a play, then the crew MUST go with a double personal foul and resume at the POI per Case Book 4.19.8 Situation C.

But, as we all know from our reading, this is paraphrased. The word signal does not appear in the above mentioned case. Neither does the word must.

I have a new question on this subject. Double whistle. Neither official gives a preliminary signal, but they have opposite opinions of the play. Each is positive that he is correct. Is it ok to go with a blarge if this happens?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But, as we all know from our reading, this is paraphrased. The word signal does not appear in the above mentioned case. Neither does the word must.

I have a new question on this subject. Double whistle. Neither official gives a preliminary signal, but they have opposite opinions of the play. Each is positive that he is correct. Is it ok to go with a blarge if this happens?

Blocks and charges (player control) get preliminary signals at the spot of the foul according to the NFHS manual, I believe (don't have it with me). So I'm thinking this case play was written with that in mind.

I just don't understand the resistance to following what the NHFS wants in this specific situation. NCAA-M have the rule/case written the same as NFHS. NCAA-W has written the rule specifically to go with the call of the primary official. Why can't we just accept that we should call it the way the respective governing bodies want to us to call it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But, as we all know from our reading, this is paraphrased. The word signal does not appear in the above mentioned case. Neither does the word must.

I'm still curious as to which reasoning you think the committee had when writing this case play.
1. Was it written for the beligerent a$$es who won't concede to one another.
2. Was it written for the odd case where both officials report their respective fouls without knowing about the other?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm still curious as to which reasoning you think the committee had when writing this case play.
1. Was it written for the beligerent a$$es who won't concede to one another.
2. Was it written for the odd case where both officials report their respective fouls without knowing about the other?

I mentioned my theory - the committee wants to make correcting an official's screw-up onerous enough that officials will be less likely to do it again.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I mentioned my theory - the committee wants to make correcting an official's screw-up onerous enough that officials will be less likely to do it again.

On this particular play, I think it's because B/C calls are tense enough anyway; giving prelims for both sides is just asking for trouble when you retract one. Just think about the time you gave the wrong prelim and went with the other call; now imagine the blarge situation and the reaction from the coach who gets the short end of this call.

I think your theory has merit, too, and may have factored into it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

...... now imagine the blarge situation and the reaction from the coach who gets the short end of this call.

A coach who tends to be reactive tends to have a big reaction to getting the short end of this call whether another signal was made or not.

Picture this. Had this call twice tonight. BV Kid drives hard to the basket, makes some kind of little stutter step move, travels, then gets clobbered by the defense. I called the travel both times. Pretty good reaction from the coach and the fans. Suppose my partner had reached out and whistled the foul on this play? Bigger reaction from the coach probably.

Partner: My bad, Coach. His call, not mine.

And we move on.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm still curious as to which reasoning you think the committee had when writing this case play.

I posted it somewhere at least once before. The first time this case was brought to my attention, I thought the whole point was to emphasize that the shot could count since the foul by the offense was not a player control foul due to the fact that it was a part of a double foul. But, I went on to wonder, if this was their intent, why would they not make the case something which could actually happen:

B1 reaches across and whacks A1 on the arm while A1 simultaneously pushes off with the other arm.

I am assured by most that this was not the intent. So, what was it? To call attention to the fact that one official got a call wrong, and subsequently make that wrong call stand rather than give the officials a chance to decide which call was right? Furthermore, the idea that the whole deal hinges on the preliminary signals would never have occurred to me.

So, while we're on the subject........

I have asked this before, but I don't recall ever getting an answer.

Play in your primary. Contact. You have an obvious blocking foul call. You go up with a fist, but hearing your partner's whistle, hold the prelim signal.
Partner comes in, emphatically making his PC signal.

What do you do?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...
Play in your primary. Contact. You have an obvious blocking foul call. You go up with a fist, but hearing your partner's whistle, hold the prelim signal.
Partner comes in, emphatically making his PC signal.

What do you do?

Let him have the call and then have a very lengthy post-game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have asked this before, but I don't recall ever getting an answer.

Play in your primary. Contact. You have an obvious blocking foul call. You go up with a fist, but hearing your partner's whistle, hold the prelim signal.
Partner comes in, emphatically making his PC signal.

What do you do?

Play in your primary. Defender flops. No contact at all. Partner blows whistle and comes in, emphatically making his PC signal. What do you do?

Same answer to both plays.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Play in your primary. Contact. You have an obvious blocking foul call. You go up with a fist, but hearing your partner's whistle, hold the prelim signal.
Partner comes in, emphatically making his PC signal.

What do you do?

Same thing my partner did to me in the one of my first varsity games: let him have the call and discuss later.

I knew immediately that we'd talk about it later. He was a great partner (I've moved since) and teacher.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He was a great partner and teacher.

Snaqwells: Thanks for the compliment, but I don't remember the play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Play in your primary. Contact. You have an obvious blocking foul call. You go up with a fist, but hearing your partner's whistle, hold the prelim signal.
Partner comes in, emphatically making his PC signal.

What do you do?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Let him have the call and then have a very lengthy post-game.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Same thing my partner did to me in the one of my first varsity games: let him have the call and discuss later.

Okay, I have said from the start that the words call and signal were not interchangeable. Many have said for the purposes of this case they are intended to be. A fist in the air is still a signal. You signaled (called?)
a foul, but it's okay to yield to your partner here just because he gave a prelim, which you believe to be wrong, and you gave none?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, I have said from the start that the words call and signal were not interchangeable. Many have said for the purposes of this case they are intended to be. A fist in the air is still a signal. You signaled (called?)
a foul, but it's okay to yield to your partner here just because he gave a prelim, which you believe to be wrong, and you gave none?

It's not only okay, it's advisable.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, I have said from the start that the words call and signal were not interchangeable. Many have said for the purposes of this case they are intended to be. A fist in the air is still a signal. You signaled (called?)
a foul, but it's okay to yield to your partner here just because he gave a prelim, which you believe to be wrong, and you gave none?

And we are saying that in this very specific play (opposing prelims given by two officials) is the only time where the prelims are binding; and only because of the case play.

1. I have not spoken with an assigner, rules interpreter, or even just a veteran official who reads this differently.

2. It doesn't make sense to think they wrote a case play to enable two beligerent referees who refused to yield. If they wanted it done the way the college women do it, they'd have worded the case play the same way.