How do you call this

[just another ref]

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?

The guy who blew the whistle, unless you can talk him out of his call.

[Smitty]

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?

How is this any different from the lead making the annoying foul tip signal as if to let everyone know there was a clean block, but the trail whistles for a foul on the exact same play?

And what the hell is this mechanic: "extend my arms as if a baseball umpire signaling a runner safe"?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

How is this any different from the lead making the annoying foul tip signal as if to let everyone know there was a clean block, but the trail whistles for a foul on the exact same play?

It's not, nor is it any different than an official giving that signal as the ball heads into the backcourt only to have another official whistle a backcourt violation. What happens on those plays? Do we go with the tip-signaling official or the whistle-blower?

Originally Posted by Smitty

And what the hell is this mechanic: "extend my arms as if a baseball umpire signaling a runner safe"?

It's certainly not an approved mechanic, but I wanted to make it clear to JR and everyone else that the non-whistling official was actually making a call, so I gave him some physical action. Otherwise, for some reason, people seem to think that the non-whistling official isn't making a decision. Perhaps they believe that he didn't observe the action.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's not, nor is it any different than an official giving that signal as the ball heads into the backcourt only to have another official whistle a backcourt violation. What happens on those plays? Do we go with the tip-signaling official or the whistle-blower?

In my experience we go with the whistle blower.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Smitty

In my experience we go with the whistle blower.

Same in mine.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1) It's not, nor is it any different than an official giving that signal as the ball heads into the backcourt only to have another official whistle a backcourt violation. What happens on those plays? Do we go with the tip-signaling official or the whistle-blower?

2)It's certainly not an approved mechanic, but I wanted to make it clear to JR and everyone else that the non-whistling official was actually making a call, so I gave him some physical action. Otherwise, for some reason, people seem to think that the non-whistling official isn't making a decision. Perhaps they believe that he didn't observe the action.

1) You have to go with the whistle-blower, by rule, unless the whistle blower subsequently decides that he wants to change his call after consultation. A signal is NOT a call; it is merely a way to convey information to participants and spectators. And the information being conveyed by that signal can be just as erroneous as the call. I can give a tip signal to my partner on an OOB call, but I also may not have seen a subsequent tip that my partner did see.

2) Nevada, you can have the non-whistling official stand on his head and his signal can then come out of his butt for all I care. He still didn't make a call; he made a signal. A completely unecessary signal that he shouldn't have made btw imo.

Rule 2-6 supports the official making the call as being the only official who can subsequently change that call. Unless you can find something somewhere from the FED that says a non-calling official's signal by itself can overrule a call, let alone having an official who did not make a signal or blow his whistle being able to overrule a call, I don't know how you can continue to support your hypothesis. Rules rulz and it doesn't matter whether any of us disagrees with them.

We're both making the same points over and over and we sureasheck ain't ever gonna agree. Time to take this one to the barn.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) You have to go with the whistle-blower, by rule, unless the whistle blower subsequently decides that he wants to change his call after consultation. A signal is NOT a call; it is merely a way to convey information to participants and spectators. And the information being conveyed by that signal can be just as erroneous as the call. I can give a tip signal to my partner on an OOB call, but I also may not have seen a subsequent tip that my partner did see.

2) Nevada, you can have the non-whistling official stand on his head and his signal can then come out of his butt for all I care. He still didn't make a call; he made a signal. A completely unecessary signal that he shouldn't have made btw imo.

Rule 2-6 supports the official making the call as being the only official who can subsequently change that call. Unless you can find something somewhere from the FED that says a non-calling official's signal by itself can overrule a call, let alone having an official who did not make a signal or blow his whistle being able to overrule a call, I don't know how you can continue to support your hypothesis. Rules rulz and it doesn't matter whether any of us disagrees with them.

We're both making the same points over and over and we sureasheck ain't ever gonna agree. Time to take this one to the barn.

So good to have the voice of common sense back:

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by fullor30

So good to have the voice of common sense back:

Thanks for the kind words.

Nevada may not agree with you though....

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Thanks for the kind words.

Nevada may not agree with you though....

It's not like he has veto power.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's certainly not an approved mechanic, but I wanted to make it clear to JR and everyone else that the non-whistling official was actually making a call, so I gave him some physical action. Otherwise, for some reason, people seem to think that the non-whistling official isn't making a decision. Perhaps they believe that he didn't observe the action.

This is a similar argument people might make for making the "blocked shot" signal. My counter argument is the absence of a signal is making a decision. We have seen where unapproved mechanics can get us in trouble. If you use your mechanic and then the C blows the ball dead on the throw-in, I'm going with the approved mechanic. This is similar to the lead doing the "blocked shot" mechanic and the trail calling a foul. Which one do we go with? The foul! Let's stay away from unapproved mechanics.