The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 10:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDurham View Post
What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 02:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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 obviously wrong.
Fixed it for you.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 02:25pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 02:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 04:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
What is this debate??
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 04:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 07:15pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDurham View Post
What is this debate??
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.
__________________
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; Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:53pm.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 09:01pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
..... every official in the world except me thinks this is what the case play requires us to do.

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


Bad Woddy!

Bad, bad Woddy!
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 09:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 09:12pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
every official in the world except me thinks this is what the case play requires us to do.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 11, 2010, 10:41pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDurham View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
If one officials over rules the other or vice versa then what does that say about us?
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.

Quote:
If we penalize both where is the disadvantage??
Obviously, the player who is charged with a foul but did not actually commit one is put at a disadvantage.

Quote:
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.......
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?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 12, 2010, 12:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post

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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 12, 2010, 12:50am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
...one ref says he was late, one says he was there.
Apparently this is what happened in the case play.

I said try.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 12, 2010, 11:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 12, 2010, 03:02pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDurham View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
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.

How do you know which one is right?
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Alternating Possession Question Timer Dave Basketball 13 Thu Dec 10, 2009 09:49pm
Alternating Possession Question OFISHE8 Basketball 6 Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:57am
Fun Test Question: Alternating Possession / Throw-in NYBAREF Basketball 7 Wed Feb 19, 2003 02:17pm
Alternating possession question. Suppref Basketball 3 Thu Mar 22, 2001 03:36pm
Alternating Possession Question jshock Basketball 11 Mon Dec 04, 2000 08:34am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1