How do you call this

[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.

[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 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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.