Did anyone see this one!?!?!?!?

[Richard Kreimer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bart Tyson:
OK Richard, after seeing the replay, how would you call it?

---

Because of the shoulder going into the chest, even though the offensive player did not get him square in the numbers I would have called a charge. Problem is we are now using 20/20 hindsight.
Tough call to make in a split second. The key in the call that caused the problem was the double whistle with two differnt signals.
They should have both come out with fist high and look at each otherwhen they heard the whistles(Call was almost simoultaneous), then decide what call they had and if they disagreed, then call the double foul.
Hope that answers your question.

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I agree with Mark. There are many instances where a double foul can be called, but not here. It makes no sense. If you call the offensive player for a player control foul then the defensive player CAN NOT commit a simultaneous block, and vica versa. . . . In this case one or the other HAS to be called for the foul.[/B]

---

John,

I understand your line of reasoning here, but I think you're confusing the issue of what "really" happened, and the need to resolve the opposite calls made by the officials. Clearly a charge and a block could not have BOTH occured on this same play. But the officials saw it differently and both came out with strong calls and (unfortunately) signals. Since one official's call cannot supercede another's call, the double-foul mechanic is intended to resolve this conflict in as fair a way as possible. Everyone (coach, fans, etc.) knows what both refs signaled, so getting together to decide who was really correct and cancelling one of the calls is not considered a viable option--imagine the outrage of the coach who gets the call against his team and his argument that the other ref was right to begin with. As others have said in earlier posts, it is not a popular call (to go with a double-foul), but it is how you get out of this situation most expeditiously and get the game moving again. I believe this play is covered in the Interpretations section of the NCAA manual, and it was also addressed somewhere in a recent Referee magazine column.

[Bart Tyson]

Richard, Its true he took it in the chest. I think the C official had it correct because he saw the whole play. The off. player jumped in the air to catch the ball and the def. was still moving. The def. didn't let the off. player come down. I disagree with the L official having the call because he was following the ball from his primary. Bang, Bang play. Goes to show you just how tough the call was when we can see slo-mo and still disagree with the call. However Todd and the Officials are correct with the double foul sense they both signaled.

[pizanno]

Props to Todd!

All officials can benefit greatly if you focus on the reasoning behind his answer.

Your (our) goal, if you get into situations like this, should not be to identify what went wrong or what "should" have been done, but rather focus on what the best way to remedy the situation.

[Alaska Ref]

Hey Pizanno,

I saw the Iowa St-Michigan St game and the double foul shouldn't have happened. It was the leads call all the way! It should have been just a bread&butter call, but everything got real complicated in a hurry.

My original post was not on the Iowa-Michigan game but one earlier in the week! Thanks everyone for all your comments.

------------------
Don