22 years, 1 blarge

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Serious answer. Who was responsible in the first place for the idea that reporting a double foul on a blarge was better than anything? Confer, decide what really happened as best you can, as we do on every other imaginable scenario in the book.

I do not think it's a good rule, but you won't convince me that (with the exception of NCAAW) there's any other way to handle it. Once the call is either signaled or verbalized, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

At least now it's not just an academic exercise for me -- I've actually been there.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I do not think it's a good rule, but you won't convince me that (with the exception of NCAAW) there's any other way to handle it. Once the call is either signaled or verbalized, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

On the contrary. Two signals. One reports a foul. The other walks away.

If there is the question: "What about you? What did you call?"

The answer: "Nothing."

Been there. Done that.

[Rich]

I don't find lying to be a proper response. Sorry. It's just as bad as football officials who blow (and then try to cover up) an inadvertent whistle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Been there. Done that.

Really? You've lied on the court?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there is the question: "What about you? What did you call?"

The answer: "Nothing."

Been there. Done that.

So, how does lying on the court help anything?

For the record, I absolutely agree with you, in principle. However, the rule is there, in black and white. I don't agree with it either, but I have to abide by it. Just like I don't agree with coaches being able to request TO's during live balls, but I still abide by it. I certainly cannot lie and say I didn't hear them, just so I can "impose" my own way of doing things, or my own philosophies.

There's a big difference between simply disagreeing with a rule or case, and purposely going against it. By purposely lying about what you did, you lose credibility with your other calls that game, and you may also lose credibility with any members of the committee who might be reading this forum and considering changing that particular rule.

So, don't screw up the cause.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, how does lying on the court help anything?


There's a big difference between simply disagreeing with a rule or case, and purposely going against it.

I honestly don't consider it lying. When I first read the case in question, I really thought the whole point was that the basket would count. Since it is part of a double foul, it is not a PC foul.

I still say a signal does not make it a foul.

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I honestly don't consider it lying. When I first read the case in question, I really thought the whole point was that the basket would count. Since it is part of a double foul, it is not a PC foul.

I still say a signal does not make it a foul.

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

How is it not lying? Even if you play the semantics game and claim you didn't "call" anything even though you signaled something; you know what the coach means when he asks. And claiming "nothing" would completely destroy any credibility you had with him.

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, besides you, claim that's not what the case play means.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How is it not lying? Even if you play the semantics game and claim you didn't "call" anything even though you signaled something; you know what the coach means when he asks. And claiming "nothing" would completely destroy any credibility you had with him.

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, besides you, claim that's not what the case play means.

As my good friend Dave always says, "When it's you against the world, back the world."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I still have never read in black and white anywhere, other than this forum, that the preliminary signal is what makes this ridiculous double foul call unavoidable.

Um...what about 4.19.8 Sit C?

I still believe the reason for this case is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics - it should be the primary official's call, and other officials need to not signal/make a call. The officials screwed up by not using the proper mechanics, so what happens? Messy solution, but doesn't necessarily favor one team over another. The same with correctable errors - they should never happen if officials follow correct mechanics and procedures. If they don't, then there's the somewhat messy rules and cases to follow. What's the purpose of making it kinda messy? To make sure we do it right the first time.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Um...what about 4.19.8 Sit C?

I still believe the reason for this case is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics - it should be the primary official's call, and other officials need to not signal/make a call. The officials screwed up by not using the proper mechanics, so what happens? Messy solution, but doesn't necessarily favor one team over another. The same with correctable errors - they should never happen if officials follow correct mechanics and procedures. If they don't, then there's the somewhat messy rules and cases to follow. What's the purpose of making it kinda messy? To make sure we do it right the first time.

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

[Adam]

Here are our options for this case play:

1. It refers to officials who report fouls without knowledge of each other (odd, I know, but I've actually been there).
2. It refers to officials who are obstinant and refuse to give ground. (do you really think they'd write a case play to encourage this behavior?)
3. It means what everyone here says it does.
4. ???

[Jurassic Referee]

Same sh!t, different day.

WOBW.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

Then you tell me - what does this occur: "One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1."? Is it only when both officials race each other to the table and report?

[just another ref]

But nobody ever answers this part.

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C actually doesn't mention the specifics of the mechanics or the signals given at all. What if both officials just had a fist up, but one intended one call and the other the opposite? The fist up is not a call, but the block/charge signal is a call?

You keep telling us what that case place doesn't mean. How about telling what the case play IS telling us to do.