It's not you; you're caught in the cross-fire of an age-old "debate," one that is mostly carried on in abbreviated fashion (and so a little hard to follow) because we find JAR's position so annoying.

Fixed it for you. ;)

But it does have the advantage of bringing officials who otherwise disagree with one another into complete agreement on one issue.

All except for the one who is the topic of the otherwise unanimous agreement.

What is this debate??

It's not a debate, per se. It's basically a well established case citation v. one irritating poster who stubbornly insists on tilting at windmills.

The debate is what our obligation is based on on 4.19.8c.

"One official calls a blocking foul......and the other official calls a charging foul......."


Everyone else says this means that if the two officials give opposing preliminary signals, they must report both fouls, (double foul) even though by definition a block and a charge simultaneously on the same play is not possible. They say we must report both fouls, even if one official has a drastic change of heart, realizes he was calling out of his primary, his partner had a much better angle, and he is almost certainly wrong. We still must report both fouls. Even though, on any other play, we have the option to say accidental whistle, and call nothing, we must report one obviously bogus foul. They say the language "calls a foul" unquestionably means "signals a foul," and after the signal, the call is irreversible, even though this is not the case in any other situation. They further say that even though a raised fist is a signal indicating a foul, and even though each official surely knows what his intent was when he raised that fist, he and his partner have the option to go with one call here, even if their original intent was to make opposite calls, (signals) so long as they avoided conflicting preliminary signals.

Even though signal is not mentioned in either the rule or the case, preliminary or any other kind, every official in the world except me thinks this is what the case play requires us to do.


I actually thought the point of the case play was, in the unlikely event of a legitimate double foul involving the shooter, (e.g. shooter pushes off with left hand while the defender simultaneously grabs the right) how to put the ball in play afterward.

Hey, he asked.

And if the world says that you're full of sh!t.....:D


Bad Woddy!

Bad, bad Woddy!

I get your point and I agree you cant have both, one had to occur first. But the whole deal is both officials have SHOWED their signals/call. If one showed a signal and the other just had their arm up then you would probably give it up and go with the official who gave his signal early. I have never seen an accidental whistle on a foul, I have seen it running up the court and putting air through the whistle unintentionally or stopping the clock for a violation (no signal) and realizing a mistake.

Back to the whole situation. If you give a Charge and I give a Block everyone in the whole gym knows we have 2 different calls. If one officials over rules the other or vice versa then what does that say about us? If we penalize both where is the disadvantage??

Like a guy told me "You have cockroaches and camels". "If you have a da** cockroach on the floor who in the crowd can see it"??? "Now if you have a da** camel come walking across the court you better in hel* have something and get it because the whole gym just saw its a** walking across the court". So in the sense by us making a mistake and giving our signals early we created a camel so we should resolve it by penalizing BOTH and putting no team at a disadvantage because we have both.

Does it seem wrong because it cant happen at the same time? YES, but it is something that we are told to do and it makes the most sense to resolve it quickly without showing up our partners by putting aside their call even if it was right or wrong.

One more point: If you were right, this has been in use long enough that the rules committee would have long ago issued a correction proving you right. Since everyone else is already doing it right; clarification isn't necessary.

Right, so what? Even if this were a legitimate double foul, which it isn't, the crowd will automatically assume one of us is wrong.

It is undeniable that one may not overrule the other, (2-6) but I see no reason the partners may not confer in this situation like any other.

Obviously, the player who is charged with a foul but did not actually commit one is put at a disadvantage.

It is better to penalize both teams, one of whom is not guilty, than to discard one call, and try to go with the correct one?

But which one...one ref says he was late, one says he was there. Hmmm.

Apparently this is what happened in the case play.

I said try.

I agree we can confer, but not with 2 signals. In my case where we had an early signal from 1 official we conferred and went with his foul since he showed it to the world. Or in the case of a violation and foul, which happened first and usually you will go with the foul having cause the violation or the violation preceding the foul. I know it seems the same and it is in a way, but the BLARGE is 2 Officials making 2 different calls by their opinions/judgements and making the call (by signaling) before checking their partners. It is all a matter of image and what one official going with his call rather than the other portrays to the crowd and to others. Plus it is what the NFHS wants use to do and our state wants us officials to do. So I am going to do it until told otherwise.

But it is 1 - 1, not 0 - 1. How do you know we got the right one if we went with yours or with mine? I could think mine is right and you could do the same. By hitting both, both seems will get 1 foul as the result of again, our mistake.

TRY is the big key. How do you know which one is right? Just get both and eat the play, it is our mistake for getting in this situation. It should never happen. Hold your signal and confirm your partners do not have a call.

If this is truly the intent and this is the reason for it then I find this really disturbing, not to mention futile. A basketball official having a positive image with anyone is the exception, not the rule.

How do we ever know anything is right? We do the best we can. Confer, if both guys are convinced that they are right, go with both. The case play is the precedent. Without the case play, I would see it as impossible to report both fouls, because I see the case play as contradictory to block/charge definition.