![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
And you would be happier yielding to your partner who called a charge when you KNOW that the defender slid in after the shooter was airborne but your partner couldn't see that from his/her angle?
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Who said I would do that?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
You did...
Quote:
You made the claim that the two officials get together and make the "correct cal". But in reality, the only decision being made is where the play occured relative to primaries. That determines the call...but it doesn't make it the correct call.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association Last edited by Camron Rust; Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 05:21pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
The part that is patently ridiculous to me is to reference this one case play and describe it as specific. "One official calls...........the other official calls..........." When is call a call? The word call is not defined. I say a foul has not been called until it is reported to the table. Most seem to think that when conflicting preliminary signals are given, you are stuck with both calls. WHY??? Nothing that resembles that is written anywhere. This even opens up the question, when is a signal a signal? Did the one official's hand actually touch the back of his head? The other guy never actually touched his hips, but he was obviously poised to do so. How much is too much. This, like many other things which happen on the court cannot be absolutely covered by the written word. I have been guilty in the past of anticipating one thing, starting the wrong signal, then changing to the (perceived) correct one. A mistake? Certainly. Forbidden by rule? Certainly not. My partner and I have a double whistle. He correctly sees a charging foul. I am fooled and make the block signal, then realize before I am finished blowing the whistle that he is right. You think I'm gonna report my foul? Not in this lifetime.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove Last edited by just another ref; Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 06:01pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
Do what you want to do, JAR. To everybody else, just follow the applicable rule. |
|
|||
Quote:
we would report both fouls. But, I would think, 99% of the time, we would go with one call or the other, after considering location of the play, angles involved, and possible obstructions of the view.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() You are basing your opinion on one of two things - either a lack of understanding of the NCAA-W's mechanic, or a lack of trust in how two officials are taught to handle any double-whistle situation. Let me ask you how you would handle this play: you are T, I am L. You have a drive start in your primary, going to the basket. There is enough contact at the basket to warrant a foul call, and both of us blow the whistle and hold up a fist. What do you do now?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
But, the discussion is not about that. The discussion is about what to do when both have already signaled with opposite calls. Now that both have done so, the NCAA-W mechanics, if I do understand them correctly, indicate that the call that will be reported/recorded will be the one of the primary official....no discussion/choice.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
Now, what is the NFHS procedure on a double-whistle with conflicting signals, but not a blarge? I'm sure most would say give it up to the primary, because that call is more likely to be correct. But if the secondary has additional information, they would convey that in communicating with the primary official. But it's not 100% the primary's call, "no discussion". In other words, the mechanic for the blarge in NCAA-W is the same as all other levels for other double-whistle situations with or without conflicting signals.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) |
|
|||
Quote:
Again, a blarge is completly different than all of the other examples you mention. You keep comparing how two different events are handled vs. two opinions of one event. Your argument that they should be handled alike has no merit.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association Last edited by Camron Rust; Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 05:52pm. |
|
|||
WHERE it occurred on the court is only part of whose primary call it is, and you know that.
|
|
|||
Agreed, but isn't the mechanic and discussion solely about who's primary it is, not who actually had the right call?
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
The discussions have always been along the lines of: "What have you got?" "I've got #42 sliding in under the shooter after she was airborne." "Oh, ok. You take it then." |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NBA blarge | Nevadaref | Basketball | 26 | Fri Feb 22, 2008 07:54pm |
NBA Blarge | All_Heart | Basketball | 8 | Sat Apr 15, 2006 01:29pm |
blarge | Bart Tyson | Basketball | 13 | Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:17pm |
BLARGE | chayce | Basketball | 46 | Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:18pm |
Blarge | Mike Burns | Basketball | 31 | Sat Jan 24, 2004 01:48am |