How do you call this

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

2-6?

Yep, that partner violated 2-6. He stepped out of the limits of his outlined duty on that play and attempted to overrule his partner's decision that the play was legal.

Why do people seem to believe that when two officials have differing opinions about a play (legal/illegal), that the decision of the one who sounds the whistle must prevail? What makes that official correct?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why do people seem to believe that when two officials have differing opinions about a play (legal/illegal), that the decision of the one who sounds the whistle must prevail? What makes that official correct?

Uh, rule 2-6

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Uh, rule 2-6

You are missing the point.
2-6 says nothing about the whistle making that official's decision correct. That provision can just as well be used to justify going with the covering official's decision that no violation occurred.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You are missing the point?
2-6 says nothing about the whistle making that official's decision correct. That provision can just as well be used to justify going with the covering official's decision that no violation occurred.

Okay, if I play along, at best it is a tie. What are you gonna do, arm wrestle for it?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, if I play along, at best it is a tie. What are you gonna do, arm wrestle for it?

Go with the mechanics and defer to the official with the PCA.

[Ignats75]

I know that this may shock some people, but I am 100% in Nevada's camp on this. We are coming together and after a brief discussion he is going to announce inadvertant whistle, or I am throwing him under the bus and I am announcing inadvertant whistle. Either way, POI at the Sideline nearest whereever B's teammate caught the ball.

That partner has no business doing BV if he is making calls like that intentionally. If its a brain fart, which we've all had, I'll withhold my judgement until he poaches into my PCA.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Go with the mechanics and defer to the official with the PCA.

PCA is a wonderful concept, but not one you will find in a rule book.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why do people seem to believe that when two officials have differing opinions about a play (legal/illegal), that the decision of the one who sounds the whistle must prevail? What makes that official correct?

NFHS rule 2.6 states definitively that that the decision of the official that made the call will prevail unless that official decides to change their call. That doesn't make the official "correct". It just means that his/her call will stand if he/she wants it to stand.

Believe it or not, the "N' in NFHS does not stand for "Nevada". Soooooo, that's the way it is rules-wise, whether you agree with it or not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I know that this may shock some people, but I am 100% in Nevada's camp on this. We are coming together and after a brief discussion he is going to announce inadvertant whistle, or I am throwing him under the bus and I am announcing inadvertant whistle. Either way, POI at the Sideline nearest whereever B's teammate caught the ball.

And another career will then get stalled at the JV level......

Terrible, terrible, terrible advice. All you and Nevada are doing is making a bad situation worse.

I can understand any official making a bad call. Been there, done that. What I can't understand is one official deliberately throwing another official under the bus for making a bad call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And another career will then get stalled at the JV level......

Terrible, terrible, terrible advice. All you and Nevada are doing is making a bad situation worse.

I can understand any official making a bad call. Been there, done that. What I can't understand is one official deliberately throwing another official under the bus for making a bad call.

I agree. Correct or not, the calling official's call stands unless THEY choose to reverse it. If the non-calling official does anything more than STRONGLY suggest that they change it, they are the ones who will be the most wrong.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS rule 2.6 states definitively that that the decision of the official that made the call will prevail unless that official decides to change their call. That doesn't make the official "correct". It just means that his/her call will stand if he/she wants it to stand.

Believe it or not, the "N' in NFHS does not stand for "Nevada". Soooooo, that's the way it is rules-wise, whether you agree with it or not.

JR, my point is that both officials made a call/decision, but only one blew his whistle. The other official decided that the play was perfectly legal and chose not to sound his whistle. What I am asking is why does the decision of the whistle-blower override the decision of the non-whistler. There is no logical reason for it.

Why can't I say that the call that the play is legal will stand?

If we always go with the whistle, then we are actually allowing one official to always overrule the judgment of another who chose not to blow simply by putting air into his whistle. That's not right.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

JR, my point is that both officials made a call/decision, but only one blew his whistle. The other official decided that the play was perfectly legal and chose not to sound his whistle. What I am asking is why does the decision of the whistle-blower override the decision of the non-whistler. There is no logical reason for it.

Why can't I say that the call that the play is legal will stand?

If we always go with the whistle, then we are actually allowing one official to always overrule the judgment of another who chose not to blow simply by putting air into his whistle. That's not right.

That's funny...my point is that only one official blew his whistle too. That would be the official that made the ONLY call on the play.

There was only ONE call made. And the RULES say that call will stand unless the official who made the call decides to change it. And if the official doesn't decide to change it, the RULES say that the call will then stand as called. And neither "logic" or "right and wrong" enter into the equation either.

You can't say that the call that the play was legal can stand because there was NO call that the play was legal. There was one call and one call only on this play.

Yes, the calling official may have screwed up badly. But that's on him. And don't forget that he thinks that he was right. That's why he doesn't want to change his call. Hopefully someone straightens him out later and he learns from it...and never makes the same mistake again. But if he doesn't learn from it, then it's still on him.

Ask yourself this....who would you rather work with?
1) a partner that screwed-up a call unknowingly and then admitted later that he was wrong when privately shown the right ruling, or
2) a partner that threw a fellow official under the bus, as Ignats75 so eloquently put it. A partner that just publically destroyed any credibility that the calling official may have had for the rest of that game.

Not a tough choice for me....and just about every official that I know. I can tell you that I would never work with that official again. I'd be afraid to turn my back on him.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That's funny...my point is that only one official blew his whistle too. That would be the official that made the ONLY call on the play.

There was only ONE call made.

....

You can't say that the call that the play was legal can stand because there was NO call that the play was legal. There was one call and one call only on this play.

Okay, for the sake of argument say that I am the Trail official and you are the C on this play. When the ball strikes the bottom of the backboard and continues onward into the inbounds area of the court, I loudly say, "Good, keep playing," and extend my arms as if a baseball umpire signaling a runner safe, then a second later you blow your whistle and call an OOB violation for the ball striking the back of the backboard.

Now whose call do we go with?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS rule 2.6 states definitively that that the decision of the official that made the call will prevail unless that official decides to change their call. That doesn't make the official "correct". It just means that his/her call will stand if he/she wants it to stand.

Believe it or not, the "N' in NFHS does not stand for "Nevada". Soooooo, that's the way it is rules-wise, whether you agree with it or not.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

JR, my point is that both officials made a call/decision, but only one blew his whistle. The other official decided that the play was perfectly legal and chose not to sound his whistle. What I am asking is why does the decision of the whistle-blower override the decision of the non-whistler. There is no logical reason for it.

Why can't I say that the call that the play is legal will stand?

If we always go with the whistle, then we are actually allowing one official to always overrule the judgment of another who chose not to blow simply by putting air into his whistle. That's not right.

Nevadaref,
The problem with your logic is that ANYTIME an official makes a call in another official's primary when the primary official does NOT sound his whistle, the primary official can simply announce "inadvertent whistle" and resume with a POI throw-in. I think that this would lead to chaos over time.

I would prefer to go over to my partner at that point in time. I would simply state that it is physically impossible for the ball to hit the BACKSIDE of the backboard and continue forward. If he disagreed, I would start with a throw-in along the end line.

At halftime, I would spend a moment to diagram the backboard and a ball showing that without something very strange occurring (compression of the basketball accompanied by an extremely unusual rotation on the ball), a ball that goes onto the court did not come in contact with the back of the backboard.

Since most basketball coaches are not physics majors, this call likely could past muster without a big deal being made by either coach/team.

I agree with Jurassic here, I would not throw a partner under a bus for this call. But, momentarily meeting with him would be no different than a brief conference on an out of bounds call.

Just my $0.02.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Okay, for the sake of argument say that I am the Trail official and you are the C on this play. When the ball strikes the bottom of the backboard and continues onward into the inbounds area of the court, I loudly say, "Good, keep playing," and extend my arms as if a baseball umpire signaling a runner safe, then a second later you blow your whistle and call an OOB violation for the ball striking the back of the backboard.

Now whose call do we go with?

You need to have a shirt with different colors to make this signal don't you?