I bet he has never met JD Collins either, but now he knows what J.D. thinks based on something he read only in a book.

Peace

Why do y'all hate on the dude for immersing himself from the jump? Sad.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

He's been given a wealth of knowledge from veteran officials "from the jump." Just because it might be critical doesn't mean anyone is "hating" on him.

Spare me.

I have no issues, but you are not going to learn every aspect of something by constantly telling others that have been around much longer than you, what is expected. Sorry, but if any of us did that at the beginning, we would have people stop helping us. You cannot challenge everything when you have not even done what half of us have done. Being an intermural official is great and some officials have gotten their start there, but they usually have to get rid of some things when becoming real officials.

Peace

I would upvote your answer if there was such an option. I almost feel as if thinking is as forbidden here as it was in East Germany when I see some of the answers:confused:.

I wanted to make a hypothesis about why stopping the clock on fouls and violations IS a point of emphasis in NCAAM and NFHS basketball, specifically that doing so prevents at least some blarge (or other embarrassing double foul) situations from the beginning, by forcing the official to slow down, see if anyone else has any other inpit, and only later declare his call. Whether in a 2-person or 3-person game, there are going to be double whistles simply because officials' coverage areas intersect, and plays will happen in these "grey areas". The key then is to get in good position, and allow the official who has the best position (whether because he saw the play from the beginning, or because the play is entering his primary area) to see the play to make the call.

There is no mention of signals, whether it be the fist, the specific preliminaries, or anything else, in the NFHS rule or case on double fouls, but apparently that's the way most officials do it.

The Call Of The Wild (Jack London) ...
 

In the first place, this is out of date. The word "calls" has been changed to "rules" in the current casebook. In the second place, it is possible to make a "call" or a "ruling" while making any signal, whether it be right or wrong, or no signal at all. Still, I understand, that's the way everybody interprets this case and that's the way they do it.

"Rules" ...
 

Sorry. Newest rulebook and casebook on my hard drive are 2012-13.

We've got coaches around here smart enough to note that one official is showing a player control preliminary signal and the other official is showing a block preliminary signal.

We've also got a few officials (most of them being subvarsity) who wouldn't realize that this is the double foul situation as described in said casebook play, and would try to get out of it by getting together to discuss the play and then convince the coaches that one official had a "better look" than the other and come up with only one foul.

Even then, a few coaches would followup with a "third party" official (they all have their go to rules guys, friend, neighbor, former teammate, brother-in-law, etc.), and discover that the two officials in the game screwed up.

Back to doing it properly, I believe that a preliminary signal is tantamount to "ruling". Others may disagree, depending on how one defines "rules".

I've never had a blarge,, however, a perfect storm of conditions, very loud gym, perfectly simultaneous whistles, several players between my partner and me, both of us wanting to sell our calls, could lead me down that path.

There but for the grace of God, go I.

So I guess b/c we have a new member who likes to asks a whole bunch of questions, JAR is now going to regurgitate the double foul nonsense only he adheres to. :rolleyes:

Noooooooo.....

BillyMac, I just checked the NFHS Central Hub on Arbiter, and Case Play 4.19.8.C is exactly the same as in 2012-13. No reason for justaref to argue that this interpretation is out of date.
NFHS Basketball Casebook 2017-18 says: "4.19.8 SITUATION C:

A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official rules a blocking foul on B1 and the other official rules a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.

RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)"

The only reason I commented was because of this statement:




This makes it look like the specifics of this signal versus that signal are mentioned in the rule, when in fact, no signals at all appear in the case, and, as we all know, as far as the rule itself, a block and a charge on the same play are not possible. Furthermore, the idea that both signals seal the deal, as near as I can tell, has caused some officials to take this one step farther and report both fouls even when they had "ruled" on two different contacts, one of which may have occurred before the other.

I've never witnessed or heard of that happening with any officials I've come in contact with.

I haven't either, but I'm just thinking that if one official had A1 pushing off with the inside arm while the other had B1 arriving late to the spot and taking the contact which he thought was torso to torso, they might be so hung up on the fact that they had already given conflicting signals that they wouldn't think to confer and come out with the one call, which would be perfectly acceptable.


WOULDN'T IT?