Alternating Possession Question NFHS
 

The next one I'm struggling with: [bballrefinks]

#7. The alternating-possession procedure is used when a double personal foul is called while A1's successful try is in flight.

I've answered true, but the only reference I can find is Rule 6-4-3g, which covers a non-goal, it doesn't say anything about a succesful try.

Copy & paste is your friend. Now you can delete the other post.

The key is to read through the entire question. You know it is in flight when the foul occurs. And you know it is successful. What happens on a double foul? [you can look at definitions for starters]

I found these helpful:

6-4-3g, 7-5-3b, 7-4-3, 4-36-2b
8.7A, 7.5.3

FYI: To assist with the clarity of rules and case references we generally adhere to the following convention - rules references are indicated by separating numbers by dashes (e.g., 6-4-3g) and cases by dots (e.g., 7.5.3).

I was trying to figure out how you didn't know this one 26 Year...I get it now.

bballref, as 26 year said, look in the definitions. Once you piece them together you can get the whole answer.

MTD's original partner, some guy named Morse, wrote the first rule book.

The red just tells me that you don't read the case book. ;)

The convention is clearly described in the foreward.

This could be a terrible idea ...
 

Which is often generally called a foreword. :p

You really have to guard against misspellings and grammatical errors sometimes.

Since some aren't (apparently) reading the rules book or the case book, I put that in on purpose to see if they are reading my posts.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Would you count the goal, then give the ball POI to team B if the goal is successful or go to the AP throw in if unsuccessful??

Half right. Okay, really you are entirely right, but there is a point to be made as regards your verbiage and the thinking it implies.

With a double foul you always resume play at the POI. In the case of a made basket, the POI is a throw-in anywhere along the end line for B. If the basket is missed, the POI is the AP arrow.

My point is that POI and AP arrow are not different answers. The AP arrow is one of the possible ways to resume play when utilizing the POI rule.

Thanks. Is it possible to have a double foul with a airborne shooter? I know you can have is it a false double??

Yes, but highly unlikely. Very highly unlikely.

True, but it's not required in order to have the shot count.

You know that, but I'm offering the clarification for those who may not.

Is a Blarge a double foul?:D

Yes, it is possible to have a double foul involving an airborne shooter. It is also possible to have a false double foul involving an airborne shooter.

Yes. In my DI scrimmage last Saturday we had the Trail go straight into the player control foul and going the other way. The Lead on the other hand has a foul but doesnt give his signal, but he has a block (I know this is different than both giving signals). The Lead gets with the Trail and they decide to with the Trails call. The Lead was the referee and seemed like he wanted to go with his foul, but thought otherwise and since the Trail gave his signal we went with his.

It was a great Blarge administration experience.

Well if you have 2 giving signals then everyone has seen it and you have no choice to go with the Double. But if only 1 has given their signal then you have a chance to just penalize theirs if the other official agress, rather than going with the Double in the instance of both giving their signal.

I meant to say that this situation is different than both officials giving their preliminary signals, because only 1 gave theirs in my scrimmage.

And all this is based on what?

You know very well what he's basing it on; and you're the only one who disagrees on the meaning.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... :)

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:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1...sugliestmu.jpg

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

Hey, aren't all my opinions simply facts? :D

Wrong end.

We'll let you know which ones are facts.

Accompanied by the appropriate poll, of course.

Nope.

Shut up.

(Ahh...the season is here!)

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?