Alternating Possession Question NFHS

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

New guy in the discussion, as far as I know. He says he knows it's different if both give preliminary signals. I want to know how he knows this, since it's not written anywhere. He also refers to the officials agreeing on the one call if only one prelim is given. This implies that they had a discussion. (Is this true?) I thought the consensus here was that discussion was not allowed.

Discussion is allowed, even required, but the result is pre-ordained by the case play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Discussion is allowed, even required, but the result is pre-ordained by the case play.

How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

Good night.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

In most cases this is true. But is this not also more or less universally accepted:

While one official may not overrule another official's call, he may share information with that official which may convince him to change his own call.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates. . .

Let's not confuse JAR's stubborn unwillingness to accept legitimate authority (on this point) with a Socratic attempt to deflate illegitimate claims to knowledge.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Let's not confuse JAR's stubborn unwillingness to accept legitimate authority (on this point) with a Socratic attempt to deflate illegitimate claims to knowledge.

Agree. Assign it where it really belongs. Sheer stoopidity.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree. Assign it where it really belongs. Sheer stoopidity.

Well, I didn't want to go there because the vast majority of his posts are spot on. Just this one point seems to stick for him. I confess it seems a little odd to me.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

Good night.

What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CDurham

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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??

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CDurham

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.