Alternating Possession Question NFHS

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CDurham

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...one ref says he was late, one says he was there.

Apparently this is what happened in the case play.

I said try.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CDurham

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.

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.

[Adam]

If they wanted us to come up with one option, they'd tell us to do that; just as NCAAW does. Just as they do for foul vs. violation situations.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Ok, so I'm cringing a little bit, knowing I'm wading back into this discussion.

jar, for all practical purposes, I agree with you. I agree with the fact the NCAA-W handle this particular situation the best. While there may be some situations where a double foul could be warranted in a blarge, the vast majority of the time it is simply two different opinions of one contact, and by rule, they both cannot be correct. But because of sloppy or incorrect mechanics, 2 officials have given differing preliminary signals.

However, what you and I think is "best" is not what the NFHS rulesmakers want us to do. In this particular case, for only this particular play, we need to follow the rule. I've mentioned my theory that the committee must think that officials are not following proper mechanics (by both officials giving a prelim signal without deferring to the primary), so they will make the outcome somewhat less desirable, in order to force the officials to do it correctly to avoid the less-desireable outcome. Perhaps the committee actually feels the appearance of one official over-ruling another is something that is more important than whether a block and charge cannot happen at the same time. But, whatever the reason, I really don't think the intent is to change some sort of rule fundamental (is it either a block or a charge?) but rather to change bad mechanics by officials.

If you want to petition the NFHS to change this rule, I will gladly sign the petition. But, in the meantime, I have to side with the others in that it is very clear in the intent on how the rule is currently written.

If it will make you feel better, I can post the same windmill picture I've posted for Snaqs in the past...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If it will make you feel better, I can post the same windmill picture I've posted for Snaqs in the past...

If he starts petitioning for a rule change, you can post the Quixote pic; otherwise I think it deserves a head-against-the-wall pic.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If he starts petitioning for a rule change, you can post the Quixote pic; otherwise I think it deserves a head-against-the-wall pic.

Or this:

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree with the fact the NCAA-W handle this particular situation the best.

When did that become a fact instead of your personal opinion?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

When did that become a fact instead of your personal opinion?

Hey, aren't all my opinions simply facts?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you want to petition the NFHS to change this rule, I will gladly sign the petition. But, in the meantime, I have to side with the others in that it is very clear in the intent on how the rule is currently written.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder.

"If two officials give conflicting signals on a block/charge play, both fouls must be penalized."

This would make the intent clear. If not for hearing it here, I can honestly say that it never would have occurred to me that the signals used/not used had any bearing on the case.

Is there another example of a signal, or the lack thereof, forcing a call to be made?



The case book is supposed to give examples of/explain further/clarify the meaning of things in the rulebook, is it not? There are cases, and this is one, which make huge groundbreaking strides way beyond what is written in the rule itself.

Would anyone here ever, in their wildest dreams, have considered calling a double foul on this play, based solely on the rule, if not for this case play?