22 years, 1 blarge
 

It happened last night. Juco men.

I'm lead, middle of the lane, obvious (well, to me anyway) block. Triple whistle. Fist. It was deep enough in the lane to definitely be the lead's first get. Just as I say block, I hear "OFFENSE". I hadn't even given a preliminary signal at that point and never did.

While the trail was in the shower, I asked the C the important question: What did you have? He said it was a no-brainer block and the T simply pointed the other way. I then asked who should've taken that and he said "definitely you."

If I had just kept my mouth shut, we would've avoided the blarge, but it would've been a horribly wrong call. Hey, we all miss one.

The coach wasn't thrilled. I could hear him talking with the C as we went to the table and reported the double foul and he said "I know that's the rule, but that's the lead's call all the way." He actually sounded like an official when he complained. :D

So I've been thinking about this on a different level this morning: Is it worse to have a blarge or to have a completely wrong call stand up simply to avoid a blarge?

Well, it was a good lesson and we only had about 25 people see it. Another chance tonight.

Personally I think a completely wrong call is worse.

To say it's better to just let it pass is kind of like penalizing a team twice for the same action.

Rich:

You are certainly not the Lone Ranger on this one. Happened to me about 3 years ago. In my case it was in a State Finals (televised) -- Ouch!

IMO it would be worse to pass on it in your position. Take the blarge and the heat as crew. We pre-game this all the time, but it will still happen time to time. Situations and emotions can effect our game as much as anyone else. **** happens.

Don't get me wrong. As soon as I said "BLOCK" I knew we were squarely in "blarge-land." To bad we weren't working the women's game as we could've gotten together and gotten it right. In the men's game, our hands were tied.

Had I not called out "block" I doubt I would've made a call, though, which is why I asked the philosophical question.

I wasn't saying you would pass only that doing so is worse. I think the women's rule is better. Initially you would here whinning from the coach losing the foul. Clearly better IMO to get the right call and move on. No one wins here.

yes

Why? To stroke officials' egos?

Serious question. Big bold font not persuasive.

Because jar believes it's not really the rule in Fed.

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.

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.

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.

Really? You've lied on the court? :(

So, how does lying on the court help anything? :confused:

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. :D

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.

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

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?

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. ???

Same sh!t, different day.

WOBW.

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?

Well, yea, but sometimes us humans thrive on consistency.

But nobody ever answers this part.

Um, yea, it's a foul call. What's the point?

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

The block-charge preliminary signal (or verbalization) is only binding in this specific situation. That's it, that's the list. It's only binding because of this case play. It's very narrow.

Lots of fiber in your diet will give you the same result as this particular discussion.

Just saying...

Apparently "consistency" means something different when you get older.

For me, one cup of coffee and 9:30AM. :eek::D

The point is, if you had a fist up intending to call block, but your partner whistles and signals PC, why are you not now obligated to report your foul also?

But the case play does not mention preliminary signals.........at all.:confused:

There is only one solution...slap fight between the calling officials until a winner is declared.

Every bit as logical as a double foul.

No, you're right. So which of my previously noted options do you subscribe to?

Again, not a single official I've ever spoken to (on or off the board) aside from you believes this doesn't say you need to do a DF on this play.

I can only imagine it applying in your #2, and no, I can't imagine that they wrote a case play specifically for that purpose. But it is equally difficult for me to imagine that a case play was written to specify that one team should be penalized if the officials improperly use preliminary foul signals, and that this is true even though the case play in question does not actually mention preliminary foul signals.

So again: You keep saying what the case play doesn't apply to. In your opinion when do the rules makers want the rule applied to?

Actually, JAR has answered that question. He envisions it applying when neither official will back down from a call.

Fair enough, and as long as you're comfortable taking on the world with this.... :)

As for me, I'll back the world.

With the fist, you've only told people you have a foul, but not what kind of foul. With a preliminary signal (or verbalization), you've told people what kind of foul. It's all about the communication, not simply the intent.

Again, we totally agree philisophically that this should not be a double foul. I have never tried to take the position that it should be. But I firmly believe the reason for this case play is to make sure officials use the proper mechanics (primary official makes the call), and to make it a little uncomfortable if they don't. The same with correctable errors and fixing timing mistakes - I'm sure we could come up with many scenarios where we can make a correction more "fair" than what the rules say to do. But then, where's the incentive to do it right in the first place, if we can just go back and fix it later anyway? If officials and table personnel did everything correctly, there would be no reason for correctable error provisions, and this case play. But since they don't, the committee has told us how they want these issues corrected. If we don't like how they want us to correct our error, then maybe we shouldn't commit the error in the first place?

Actually, the DF makes the situation easier. It eliminates the need for the two officials to hash out which one will stand.

I'm not saying that a foul signal or call is forever in all circumstances -- last night I had a PC foul and my partner came in with a travel except he only came up with an open hand and hesitated when he saw my fist. We came together and even before he said anything I replayed the sequence in my mind and realized he was right. I was so focused on the dipped shoulder and the contact that I didn't get the shuffled feet. All I said was "travel first, right?" He said yes. Life went on.

That's different than officiating the same exact thing two different ways, though.

Yeah, but you know what kind of foul you had.

Not really. In the case of a foul and a travel, one happened first, making the ball dead, so the other didn't happen.

By definition, if a blocking foul happened, a charge didn't happen, and vice versa.

Same sh!t, different day.

Friday.

Manual not readily available, but aren't PC and Blocks supposed to get a preliminary on the spot of the foul? And wouldn't that indicate a specific foul has been called? And how are you assuming "improper" use of preliminaries if the play were to happen in a dual coverage area, but the officials just had differing opinions?

They brought it up, yesterday and today.

I don't know what is in the manual, but is it not generally agreed that on a double whistle officials should withhold the preliminary signal for this very reason?

And don't think that I'm not pissed off at them for not just ignoring something as idiotic as your assertation that a plainly written rule simply doesn't exist. :)

Nobody that can read and has an IQ higher than a doorknob would ever buy that nonsense anyway. So...why bother arguing it with you?

But keep on keeping on, JAR. Maybe you can lure somebody else in.

WOBW.

Yes, but once the preliminaries are used, the fouls have been "called".

Is that in the manual?

Am I the only one who doesn't know what this means?

Is it one of them "philosophy from hell" things?

1) Waste of band width.

2) No, it's an accurate description of this particular discussion.

I'll go along with you and say it is not. So, now back to my question, when would the case play apply?

So you continue to use more band width to point out what a waste of band width the discussion is.:confused:

and of course you've proven his point again by responding

Thought that's what band width was for.


I actually don't really know what band width is.

In my world, it wouldn't. I cannot envision a situation where it would.

Which definition is that?

BLOCK: "Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball."

CHARGE: "Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponent’s torso."

Nothing in these definitions precludes the possibility of having both on one play.

You might have a point about proper enforcement, but that's not a matter of definitions.

These two things can happen simultaneously?:confused:

And there's the rub. In the world of the FED and NCAA-M there are situations that this rule applies otherwise it wouldn't be in both of their rule books. Nor would NCAA-W have specific wording to preclude such a call.

I went 15 years before having my first blarge back in mid-December. Neither coach said a word after it was explained to them that 'by rule' it's a double foul.

If I can go another 15 years before the next one, I'll be happy. Or hopefully the rule is changed to the NCAA-W rule by then.

Women use this because of less egos. Men's side won't give up their call because "I'm right and you're wrong."

Multiple foul is also in the books. If I'm not mistaken, many here have expressed varying degrees of intent to "ignore one and go with the other" in that situation without being condemned for it.

I vary from the norm in many ways, apparently. Time to put on my uniform and travel a hundred miles to call some games.:D

Let's take a different approach
 

If the L calls a PC and the C calls a block and they both give preliminary signals, what are you going to do if you are one of the officials? How are you going to resolve this?

Confer and go with one call. The "conference" may involve nothing more than one official walking away and deferring to the other.

"I made a signal, but I realized my partner had the call."

Where do you get this mechanic?
 

Where in the manual does it indicate we are to use this mechanic?

Couldn't say. Where does it tell what to do if you signal one thing and realize you should have signaled something else, or nothing at all? It happens.

My point is....
 

You are arguing against conventional wisdom on this play based on the fact that when a foul is "called" is not defined in the rule book. Yet you also recommend a mechanic that is not defined. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to argue against the consensus on this, you have to come up with something that is supported, IMHO.

True it happens, but there is no case play either way on that. There is when two officials call two different fouls on the same play. I believe the implication is that when you signal a preliminary that you are making a call. That is why we are taught to not signal on a double whistle until one official defers to the other.

But that isn't a valid way of doing textual interpretation. The case play refers to "calling" a foul. You choose to define that to mean making a preliminary signal. And you could be right that this was the intent but you can't defend that from the text only. You can't soundly say that no one can criticize your attribution unless they have a valid attribution for what they suggest.
It may be that the intent of this case play is as most on this board feel it is. Not my game, so I'm happy to defer to the majority their. But as written that's not what it says. I'm fine with that as there are things in the softball rulebook that don't really mean what they say and someone who knows what is going on just has to explain what was meant.
A natural reading of this passage requires you to figure out what is meant by calling. If you believe it's making a preliminary determinative signal (as opposed to the preliminary signal that it is a foul), then I'm curious how you differentiate these two cases:
A. In your PCA with no one poaching, you see an obvious PC, blow your whistle to get it and in a serious brain cramp hit your hands to your waist. Oops, sorry coach my bad, PC.
B. Double whistle on an obvious PC. You do the same thing but since you're partner signaled the PC erroneously you can't fix your mistake even though you never intentionally called the block.
And the case play isn't enough to get you there.
________
Roll A Joint

Of Course it is
 

When ever you read something you interpret the meaning based on the written word. Sometimes that requires inferring what the writer meant. And it is a good debating tactic to show the weakness of ones argument by showing that they are doing exactly what they argue you are doing. It neutral's your argument. It doesn't prove mine, but it weakens yours. You can't say the rule book or case play doesn't say one thing and then justfiy your approach that is also not defined by the same rule and case books. You can't have it both ways. If the majority is wrong for inferring that the preliminary signal is "calling a foul" then you are equally wrong for conferring to determine which foul occurred first. It's not supported by rule or mechanic.

And I'm not saying you can't criticize my argument. I'm saying you can't defend your argument because the rule book doesn't support your position.

I recently had a triple whistle....Good double for the lead and trail, but the C reached through and past the lane.....I was trail, and held to give the call to the lead, who came out with a block (which was the correct call), but the C did not hold his whistle and signaled player control.... YUCK.

Why are you always making this assumption? Dual coverage, one official sees it one way, the other sees it another.

What assumption is that? We all realize this is what happened. I think we all realize that the two opposing views should not result in opposing signals.

But if they do, decide which call is best and go with it.

True......BUT, you have to pregame this scenario so that officials freeze, make eye contact, and then ONE makes the signal....Typically, it is best for the lead to make this call in 2 person, or if the ball comes from the trail's area in 3 person.

I'm past all the pre-game stuff. We are now talking about the actually case play.

Dual coverage, both officials give a preliminary. If this is not what the rulesmaker intended to be addressed by the case play, then what?

I disagree. Dual coverage or not, someone needs to be "primary". Sure, a pregame may not keep this from happening, but a blarge is always preventable.
Having to call a double foul in these cases looks ugly, and makes the appearance that the crew is not on the same page.

Still haven't answered my question. If my scenario is not what the rules makers had in mine, then what?

I hear you, BadNews.....This is a tough situation no one wants to be in and there is not a "good fix"........

How do the two guys who both just went up with a fist arrive at just one call?

Been there once. In a college game. With a far more experienced official than I.

Following season, I still got an increased college schedule. Other official added the D-League to his resume'.

So it's not the end of the world. But I bet we WOULD HAVE gotten in trouble if we had decided to ignore the case play.

That is my point with the pregame, overrated or not.
I will pregame that the lead takes this call. The trail drops, lets the lead take it, and then you can discuss your differences off of the court. This can be discussed all week with differing opinions, but at least in this case the crew does not look disjointed.

JAR, if you were even close to right, the case play in question wouldn't need to exist at all.

If it does need to exist, it needs to be reworded. As is, any way you look at it, either the case itself or its perception has holes in it.

Same sh!t, different day.

Saturday.

They have calendars in hell.

Very, very good officials have had blarges (I don't put myself in the very, very good category). For better or worse. If it was *always* preventable, it wouldn't happen at higher levels and I do remember seeing D-1 guys have them from time to time.

(Like I tell my football crew -- we haven't had an inadvertent whistle in a varsity game in 5 years -- but if we do, there's a half-page in the rule book to deal with it. There's a specific procedure. IWs should NEVER happen, but they do and when they do, we move on and handle the situation by rule. We can apologize and we can admit that this shouldn't happen, but it did and we're moving on from it. Period.)

For whatever reason, officials tend to give a quick preliminary on block/charge calls. I think part of it is that if 2 officials go up with a fist and look at each other and wait too long, there would be a perception of nobody knowing what's going on. Right or wrong, there is that.

Sometimes, though, a call is obvious and obviously in a primary and another official simply makes a mistake. And I feel in NFHS and NCAAM that there simply isn't a choice here. I think the intent of the case play is clear and ties my hands.

Not by the book...
 

You don't if you go by the book. There is no support for getting together and deciding which is best.