What is the reason?

seriously

Seriously, because the rulesmakers needed to cover a situation that actually happens in real life, no matter what the people who say that's supposedly impossible might think. Yes, under ideal conditions and correct mechanics, a blarge shouldn't happen. But unfortunately they do happen on occasion, and they happens to the best of us. And under NCAA Mens and NHHS rules, the correct call on a blarge is a double foul. Whether one of the fouls was wrong or not is moot as far as we're concerned.

JAR, my point is that (1) we don't write the rules, and (2) we don't get to pick and choose what rules we can call or ignore by personal like or dislike either. We, as officials, have to live with what we're given. And what we're given under NCAA Mens & FED rules is that if we have conflicting calls made in a block/charge situation, then both calls will stand. That's the way that The Powers To Be want it called. Until that's changed, so be it.

Jurassic Referee, in the same sitch I had... what would YOU have done??

Keep in mind, my partner punched & reported p/c (from the spot) nobody is going to the reporting area in the fall, especially when team fouls are only being recorded. No long switches, so he administered the subsequent throw-in quickly. I have to get from old C to new L in a up & down affair.
What should I have done?

Because a foul is only a foul if it is called based on the OPINION of the official(s). Given that there are up to three possible opinions and that no one official may overrule the judgement of another, it becomes a block and a charge at the same time if more than one expresses their opinion....by rule.

I read his post to say he blew the whistle but didn't signal the foul yet. If not, he handled it right, even if he was planning to signal the opposite.

I have always been with you on this part. But until some written reference to the signal being a part of what makes or breaks this play, I personally will never look at it that way.

For the record, the only time this ever happened to me, I didn't even know it until afterward. I had the block. My partner saw me and quickly deferred. He dropped his signal and switched. I didn't even know he had blown his whistle. The coach who caught the short end said, "What did y'all do, flip a coin?" But he was actually smiling. Maybe that means we got it right.

Let's try a "real case". You blow your whistle for a charge and your partner whistles, too; no one has given a preliminary signal, so you don't know what was your partner's call, but you realize that your partner probably had a clearer view of the play. Are you telling us that you're going for your call anyway, because that's the rule?

Ciao

If your call was that it was a charge, then you have to go to your partner to see what his call was. If he agrees it's a charge, you report it. If he thinks it was a block instead, you have to report both fouls. If you're not sure that it really was a charge, you shouldn't have blown your whistle in the first place. The rule of thumb at any level is never to make a call unless you are sure of that call. If you're not sure of your charge call in your "real case" above, then call your whistle an inadvertant whistle and defer to your partner.

A "clearer view" has got nothing to do with the final result either, same as knowing whose primary it came from too. What matters is that you both blew your whistle for a foul on the same play. Whether one of you shouldn't have blown their whistle is now moot because both of you actually DID blow their whistle. You and your partner also both signalled fouls by blowing your whistle and raising an arm with a closed fist(using proper mechanics), even though neither actually signalled the nature of the foul. If you now have conflicting foul calls, you have a "blarge" and have to report both the charge and the block under NCAA Mens and NFHS rules.

So do have to report both or not?

I think that's JR's way of saying the same thing as I, while pretending to stick to the written rules. :)

Ciao

Nope, that's JR's way of saying that if you make a foul call on the floor that you thought was correct, and you then fail to follow through with your call just because your partner might have made a simultaneous but opposite foul call, you shouldn't be out on the court in the first place. You don't have the balls to be a GOOD sports official

Is that clear enough?:)

When In Hell ...
 

That may be true by the book, and according to the way you do things in your little corner of Hell, but in my little corner of Connecticut, we are taught to give the call to the official that the play is moving toward (some boards and associations may prefer that the officials who had the primary where the play started take the call).

Jurassic Referee: If we, in our little corner of Connecticut, were to do it your way, the proper way according to the rules, we would really piss off our partners, and you know what happens to officials who piss off their partners all the time? Your reputation suffers, your ratings, and rankings suffer, and nobody wants to work with your any more.

When in Rome ...

I hope you are only talking about blarge situations, not a regular double whistle. There is no way I am going to the table with a foul that my partner(s) have agreed that we may not have the same exact thing, but we make a decision to give that call to one official or another. We call things because of our perspective which can be honestly different from someone because of our angle. That does not mean that the call we are personally making is correct or did not have something else happen first.

Peace

That's a bit rude, isn't it? :) It's not "having balls" or not. It's just being on the court and knowing that we are not perfect; that we can call something based on our view which can be nonoptimal. I call a contact which has to be called, be it a charge or a block, and the mechanics tells me to call it, but I realize that (1) it's a double coverage area, (2) my partner has a better perspective, and (3) my partner may have called it different from me: all I should do in order to respect the game is to leave the call to my partner. That's it: being a team and not two or three officials who happen to be on the court at the same time.

Ciao

Just want to understand JR...on a double whistle involving a block charge situation, two officials go up with a fist to signal a foul. Neither has given a preliminary signal as to whether it's a block or a charge. Through whatever method, the call is deferred to one official and he signals a block. In the other official's opinion, the play was a charge and would of be signaled as such without the double whistle/if the play was deferred to him.

Are you saying that you would still call a double foul in this situation? I can't imagine that is what you're saying, because what would be the point of following correct mechanics and holding your prelim to avoid the blarge?

I disagree.

I thought we were all on the same page about what it meant to make opposite calls (except for the couple of people that insist that it is not a blarge until both officials report to the table).

Blowing the whistle and raising a fist is NOT the same as making the call. Until an official signals the type of foul, nothing has been called, yet. The whole point of going to the double foul is to cover the situation where the officials have indicated opposite calls...not just thought about opposite calls.

Done correctly, one official will realize that their partner should have the call and will give it up or will, knowing they saw something interesting, will tell their partner(s) that they're taking the call. No discussion, no need to know what they were going to call.

Like you, I thought most were in agreement on this point. But, while the above is not an unreasonable way to approach the situation, it is not supported by rule in any way that I am aware.

Then we are playing with semantics. No one knows what you have until you either talk about it or you signal. The rules do not say anything about reporting two different fouls because we simply blow our whistles or do not signal.

Rules only include two different signals (block and a PC foul) and what to do with that strictly under the rules. To assume more is really over the top if you ask me. Not saying you personally JAR is saying that, just think we doing what we do on this board, over analyze the common and basic situation and turn into something we were never talking about in the first place.

Another day, another dollar I guess. :D

Peace

Gonna have to explain that one a bit more.

Ok, sooooooo... all of that being said, I shouldnt follow Jurassic's "Wonderful Words of Wisdom" on this matter & go with what I originally said in post #91 instead? :rolleyes:

Do you know of any rule in the rulebook that says a simple double whistle should be handled the same as the "blarge" example given in the casebook?

There is no such reference. There might be a classification of what a foul is, but no suggestion that we simply have two (or 3) officials have a call and blow a whistle that we must report all fouls no matter what by rule.

I do not think I am telling you anything you do not already know. But maybe you are not understanding what I was trying to say. I thought I was clear, but maybe not.

Peace

Obviously, there is none. My concern all along on this matter, is whether the case play is based on the fact that there was a double whistle, or a double signal, or a conflicting preliminary signal, or

WHAT IS THE POINT OF NO RETURN??

What is a call? I have been told with regard to granting a timeout that the timeout "call" is a mental event which occurs upon the recognition of the request and is not directly tied to the whistle/signal.

Why is this different?

Try this hypothetical. Contact takes place. Everybody in the building, including you, sees a PC foul. Your partner quickly whistles and signals a blocking foul before you get the gun out of the holster. You are momentarily stunned and do nothing. Are you out of the play now because he got there first?

We are never going to please everyone or the people we work with always. We have to have some process to make decisions. All sports have those processes to decide who has what and not every judgment call is up for debate. For example in football if someone comes in a rules a pass in complete, that is what we go with. The same should be true and is true in a situation where there is a call between two basketball officials. If that is not done, then every call will be debated and up for some question. We cannot do that or our games will take hours potentially. There has to be a point we live with a call. I think it is totally unrealistic that we will always have everyone agree with a call. We have primary coverage areas for a reason. We know when someone had a better angle. And if there is a real dispute, then officials that cannot get calls right do not need to be working certain games or certain levels. We all miss calls from time to time. Some miss more than others. And most calls are not block-charge in nature either. And in my experience most double fouls are not really in dispute as we know what the outcome will and should be with the call in the first place.

Peace

All true, but not the point. The point was whether anyone would consider that he had mentally made a call at this point and report it.

I hope not.

I too would hope not.

Peace

Wow, what fun!!
NCAAREF: I think I might be the only one who gets what you are trying to say. I believe what you are trying to say is that it is a physical and spatial impossibility for a player to both "take a charge" and commit a blocking foul. You are either legal or you are not. And If I may be so bold I will answer the questions brought to you about why the BLARGE situation. The reason that is put in the rule book is because of mistakes made by the officials on the floor. It has little to do with whether the call is correct or not, but how do we cover a situation where officials did not follow proper procedures.

NFHS NCAA M and NCAA Women happen to handle it different ways. I prefer the NCAA W way, for several reasons. As was stated, NCAA W primaries can be a little more fluid. For instance, how do you determine WHERE the play came from? The ball handler may be coming from C's area but the defender may be coming from L's position. When contact occurs, C may be blocked out from seeing the defender and vice versa. It is amazing the amount of information that can QUICKLY be exchanged when officials get together. You will hear over and over and over again at NCAA W camps etc GET THE PLAY RIGHT. Seems pretty clear to me at that point what the intent of the rules are and powers that be want to happen in this situation.
I have personally seen this more in HS games but that may just be me. And if it were to happen to me in a HS game I would follow those proceudures. However, it doesn't keep me from liking what the directive is on the NCAAW side. In more ways than one on the NCAA women side it is irrelevant whether you have 'balls' or not but whether you get the play/situation correct.

I think you are wrong. I think everyone knows what he is saying....but it is irrelevant. No one is saying it can be both. It should have been one or the other but fouls are judgment calls and two different officials has differing judgments. Both may have had a great view of the play and just have differing opinions.

A1 dribbles around the perimiter against the zone, and steps directly into the area that would be between the T's primary coverage area and C's area, and launches a 3. The C points at the ground, indicating a 2-point try, while the T raises their arm for the 3. The try is successful. What do we do?

Both officials simply had different judgements on the same play, but we know, by rule, both cannot be correct. Using the "blarge" administration, we would have to count both. (2 1/2 points? 5 points?!?) Of course not; the officials would have to get together and eventually decide someone's going to be "correct" and someone's going to be "wrong" on that play. It happens. So why is the blarge treated differently than any other double-whistle on one play where the officials disagree on the call?

:DI will kindly disagree. It IS relevant. It goes to my point about this being a rule to cover an OFFICIALS mistake. This IS handled differently than any other double whistle, even when prelims are given and I am not sure why either. Which I why I like the NCAA W policy better.
I would open a can a worms about double fouls being impossible as well, but this is providing enough dialogue!! (someone HAD to foul first! HA):D

Ego of the people involved.

Who knows? And it don't make no nevermind anyway. They give us rules and we're expected to follow 'em. And not just the rules we like either. If we have simultaneous whistles for a foul and a violation, we have to pick one- no matter whether conflicting signals were given or not. Blarges are handled differently. Whether the applications make sense or not isn't a factor.

We can discuss this for another 9 pages and ain't nuthin' gonna change. It just is what it is.

Why do I have to keep repeating this to you? :rolleyes:

It is because a blarge is completely UNLIKE every other double whistle situation. It is about what two officials THINK about ONE event vs. what two officials THINK about TWO independent events.

Your example of 2 vs. 3 is not the same....one official sees a foot on the line and the other didn't see it...could be that they looked at different times. It is a 2....period. Same thing about stepping OOB (which might have double coverage briefly in transistion)....if one official calls it OOB, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Seeing a foot on a line is a positive ruling, not seeing a foot on a line is not.

EDIT: your 2 vs. 3 situation is a lot closer to one official calling a foul and the other not calling a foul. If one offiical really thinks it shouldn't have been a foul, should he/she step in and have a discussion? Maybe they think the player didn't even make contact!!!

Plus, your example of an official indicating a 2 pointer is already wrong as there is no such mechanic or signal that is to be made on a two point bucket....yeah, it is done, but technically it is not proper.

I thought that we were supposed to check those at the door:confused::p

I know. I've said many times before I'll call it as it's written, under the proper rules set. But I can still say the NFHS version is a stoopid rule. :D

Because I'm a stubborn SOB. Just ask my wife. :p :D

Actually, I think a majority of double-whistles are what two officials think about one event. It's just that most of the time the officials agree, and only one takes the call to the table. It's just what happens when they disagree, and show different signals, that's the issue.

Good example - what do you do if your partner comes over to you and tells you there was no contact on the foul you just called? One of you is right, and one of you is wrong - different opinions on the same play.

The reason for the NFHS blarge ruling is because the officials were wrong by not following the proper mechanics. Same issue - wrong mechanics - but different procedures and different results. That's been my point.

Camron, I'm done discussing this. We each have our reasons why we believe the "blarge" rule is in effect in NFHS and NCAA-M, but since neither one of us is on the rules committee, or personally knows someone who is, we will just have to agree to disagree as to the reason. We do know for certain when we work together, we will follow the rule as written, and then one us will get slapped up 'side of the head after the game for not following the correct mechanincs on the play. :D

Agree.
Nothing....because a non-call is not a call...we don't call non-infractions. If an official calls a foul, it is a foul. Unless the other official has a different infraction that precedes it, there is nothing for them to add.

One final thing to consider.....mechanics are not rules.....and are not even close to rules. They are just a framework established in order to best administer the rules. Not following a mechanic doesn't change the fact that an official saw and called an infraction.

Three-Peat © ...
 

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

As an aside: Here in the Constitution State we do have our own "Connecticut Only IAABO" mechanic: Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.

Connecticut only???:confused:

Anybody in Connecticut or IAABO ever read case book play 2.7.8? :D Specifically, the part that says "Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for a two-point goal or free throws. <font color = red>However, it is necessary to signal in case of doubt or confusion</font> and when point(s) are awarded."

That is how/when we're supposed to signal made 2-point goals. That makes the IABBO mechanic redundant imo.

Not quite. The lack of any official signalling a 3 is the signal it is a 2. The lack of any one official signaling a 3 is nothing....unless you're saying the lead should also be signaling 3's at the top of the key.

Misty Watercolor Memories Of The Way We Were ...
 

2.7.8 SITUATION: During the course of the game, the officials: (a) do not signal successful two-point field goals or free throws; or (b) do signal the value of point(s) resulting from defensive goaltending or basket interference. RULING: This is proper procedure. Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in cases of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded. Officials shall also continue to signal a successful three-point goal.

This casebook play seems to describe the signaling of a successful two point or a successful three point try. Here in Connecticut we signal a two point try attempt where the shooter has a foot on the line by pointing to the three point line.

Remember back in the twentieth century when we signaled all successful two point or successful one point trys by indicating the number of points with two fingers or one finger?

Corrigĕre ...
 

You're right. I should have said, "from your primary coverage area".

Of course there is always that "gray area" in a two person game, the foul line extended on the lead's side.

And that's why I amended my post to say that having us signal a 2-point goal in case of doubt or confusion makes that IAABO mechanic redundant.

Blarge
 

I think I like the NCAAW's procedure better, let the person who's primary is take the call and move on. I also had one a year ago. I was "C" and the Lead called a block. I was half way to the other end and the coach stopped me and said he called a block. I had already reported so sad to say, I used the women's mechanic, I reported my foul so let's move on. The coaches agreed it was a charge.

Nearly eight years is a long time wait to make a comment.

Don't get me started on "blarges"!

MTD, Sr.

I would agree, but then the NBA would have to follow suit as well. In FIBA, 2 fouls are charged, but the shot does not count, due to one foul being a player control foul.

Well this was suggested 8 years ago. Let me let you in on a little secret. NCAA Men's basketball does not care about NCAA Women's rules. If they had they would have changed that long time ago.

Peace

I'd bet good money that THIS is the reason why J.D. Collins cares so much about officials stopping the clock on all fouls and violations (He said so in the 2017-18 NCAA men's basketball mechanics video on YouTube, and the men's CCA manual has written instructions that stopping the clock (with open hand or fist) is required on ALL fouls and violations). If an official posts a fist, he can look for another fist or hand. For example, the Big 12 All-Access video showed a play in the Baylor-OU game where James Breeding, the L, raised his fist to call a charge by Quincy Acy of Baylor, but saw that Joe DeRosa, the T, had a different foul on Oklahoma 21, and wisely held off, because the foul by 21 caused Acy to charge.

Officials can come together if both raise a fist, but once the block and charge are both signalled, in NCAAM or NFHS rules, the calls cannot be withdrawn. This, therefore, is a situation where an ounce of prevention (using proper signals to stop the clock and scanning the floor before making a preliminary signal) is worth a pound of cure (enforcing both fouls).

It's Really Not About Stopping The Clock ...
 

Good point. IAABO international, state, and local, have been telling us (with international observers criticizing our guys in our state tournament) for years to always use one of the three stop the clock signals, and telling us, and telling us, and telling us. They never bothered to tell us why. This is a good rationale. It's really not about stopping the clock, is it?

Of course officials can argue about the real need for the stop the clock signal for out of bounds plays, but that's another story for another time.

You might be the first person on this forum to talk to veteran posters like they've never officiated anything above wreck league ball.

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?

Well, the only "blarge" I've ever been directly involved in was not a fast break or even a play in the paint going to the basket. Happened 9 years ago in my 1st season of college officiating. I was Trail and my partner (whom I just saw working an NBA Summer League game) was Lead for a one-on-on matchup FTLE, inside the 3-point arc. As A1 started his drive there was contact and a double whistle. We both posted, then made eye contact. We both assumed the other was giving up the call and at the same time I went PC and he went block. We reported both. Turns out I had A1 pushing off with an extended arm while my partner had B1 sticking his knee/leg out and making contact.

Which call should we have gone with?

If they happened at the same time, you report both. This is the definition of a double foul. But if you don't confer, how will you know what you had? And the conference could provide additional information.


"What you got?"
"He stuck out his left arm."
" Yeah, I saw that but he didn't even make contact."
"Okay, you had a better angle. It's your call. Take it."

I've never seen a blarge where the official didn't confer before reporting.

When you said you both assumed the other was giving up the call and then reported, I thought you meant you did so without conferring. So, in this situation, were preliminaries given? And whether they were or not, was going with one call an option?

After posting and making eye contact, we simultaneously gave conflicting signals (block & PC). We got together and reported both.

This would be one of the few times where a blarge is a legitimate call. Both of you were in good position to see the action that happened, and there was actually something that both players did wrong. CC to you and the Lead.

Most blarges are not like this, because on the typical blarge, two players crash, two officials blow their whistles with differing calls, and only one of the calls is correct (either the defender was in legal guarding position prior to contact (charge) or not (block). However, in either scenario, the two calls are irrecusable if the officials both give a preliminary signal.

This is along the lines of what I'm saying. The case play says one official rules a charge while the other rules a block. If it's a given that this does mean signals, does everyone maintain that this means the PC signal too, as opposed to only the charge signal? Obviously a charge is not the only kind of PC foul. Furthermore, around here it has always been rare for an official to give the actual charge signal, which is two open hands extended (is it not?) as a preliminary. Also, in recent years, it seems that many have abandoned the PC signal as well, choosing instead to use the one handed punch for anything against the offense, which is actually the team control signal.

This is what confuses me about your position. What would the "call" be if you do not signal? You think that we "post" on a foul and because we feel we have something different than our partner that signaled and we personally did nothing but post, this interpretation suggests we must go with a double foul?

Peace

Liver Pills ???
 

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we have more variations of player control foul/charge signals than Carter’s has liver pills.

The call (ruling) is whatever you say it is regardless of what signal you give. That's all I've ever said, and to date I've seen nothing to disprove it. The case play tells what to do if the officials make conflicting rulings. It says nothing about what they must do, period.


Full disclosure: I had never seen the term "posting" before this thread. This means just going up with a fist? So you don't "rule" anything when you just go up with a fist?

Hey, Mr. Postman...
 

An example of posting prior to signaling. Thrown out there for purposes of discussion because it seems on topic. If not, simply disregard.

Post and Hold

You are literally the only person that makes that argument. I have never seen anyone on or off this site make that argument. Well, you go with that, but you had the chance and choose not to ask. So I will stick with the position I hold.


You have a foul, but you certainly do have not told everyone. And that is not what the caseplay is addressing as much as you keep trying to go down the rabbit hole.

Peace

JRutedge, you are right. In the case play, both officials declared the separate fouls that they had because they gave the appropriate signals. End of story.

,


Everyone, as far as I know, agrees that this is the proper way to do it. But, in this video, if you are the C and you are positive that the correct call is a block, it seems to me that you have made a ruling, whether anyone else knows what it is or not. The case play says if you rule one thing and your partner rules the other, report both. But everyone here says you don't have to report both unless conflicting signals are given. If that's the way everyone does it (it isn't) fine, but it provokes more questions. What if, in this video, the L posts and holds, and the C quickly signals block, then realizes he kicked it. Can he change his own call/signal/ruling or not?

Correct. And all pregame conversations I've been involved in concerning avoiding blarges always include statements about officials posting without giving a preliminary.

To me, you are trying to be cute with the wording. No one that I have ever been around had made this argument but you. No one!!! Not at the college level that has the same rule and not at the HS level where I work and train officials all over my state. We talk about this to avoid having to be in this situation and no one considers a "ruling" until you signal. If you do not signal you can act like you agree with your partner. Usually, we should have the official signal that is in their primary or we have decided should take the call (like the lead in the paint). But you are telling me because in my mind I have a position on what should be called, we should then insist on sticking with that even if it is different than my partner because "in my mind" I feel it was different, then we should report that foul anyway?

I know this is stuff you have said this before, but that is absolutely silly. And that is why people are kind of dismissive of that position that you only hold it seems. Maybe where you live people do not do it that way, but everyone I know in multiple states seems to do it that way.

Peace

A Robert Burns Quote On The Forum, How Cool Is That ???
 

My pregame always includes (even if I'm the umpire) a reminder to not give a preliminary signal if we have double fists. We always let the lead take the call, give the preliminary, go to the reporting area, and report the foul.

A double whistle with one open hand and one fist means that we get together to figure out what happened first with language such as, "I saw your foul but he traveled before the foul", or, "I saw your travel but he traveled because he got fouled". Same thing involving one held ball signal, and one "other". And don't believe for a second that some coaches aren't smart enough, and aren't observant enough, to question two different hand signals on a double whistle. They're not as dumb as they look. Same thing with two different preliminary signals on a double whistle, double fist. Some coaches, maybe not all coaches, but some coaches will notice.

Of course the "double fist hold the preliminary" scenario assumes that we heard each other's whistle and/or observed the other's fists. In a really loud gym, with several players between my partner and me, and with both of us trying to sell a block call, or charge call, well, Robert Burns said it best, "The best laid plans of mice and men go oft awry".

If coaches have been around the game they can read some things from us. But if we have a violation and a foul and signal as such, that makes more sense to explain and there are no rules mandating us to go with both calls. Even a simple double whistle is not a problem. But once we signal, we have a rule that tells us what to do. Only JAR seems to be taking this position and if that is the best he can do, then I am good with calling a double foul. But I never want this to happen and avoid this at all costs. When I am the outside official, I try my best to hold as long as I can until I am sure someone else does not have a whistle. When someone has a whistle, I freeze. Then we decide who had it in their primary and who had the best look. Usually pre-gamed but if not I know what I am not doing.

Peace