Blarge administration

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Gonna have to explain that one a bit more.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Gonna have to explain that one a bit more.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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