Question and Advice

[just another ref]

And y'all can tell all this from reading this one case play?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And y'all can tell all this from reading this one case play?

If it is the only example that they suggest this is the case, then yes. If the intent was different than there would be many more examples wouldn't you think? And in multiple cases there are only one example of any interpretation.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it is the only example that they suggest this is the case, then yes. If the intent was different than there would be many more examples wouldn't you think? And in multiple cases there are only one example of any interpretation.

Peace

The only thing I get out of the case is that if one of the participants in the double foul was an airborne shooter, since his foul is part of a double foul that it is not a player control foul, so the ball does not become dead. Therefore the shot can still count. It then proceeds to spell out what the POI is and how to proceed from there.

That's it. That's the whole case. Nothing about obligation to stick with any call based on any signal given or not given.

Anything else anybody gets out of this case, they either read/heard it elsewhere, or made up their own interpretation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The only thing I get out of the case is that if one of the participants in the double foul was an airborne shooter, since his foul is part of a double foul that it is not a player control foul, so the ball does not become dead. Therefore the shot can still count. It then proceeds to spell out what the POI is and how to proceed from there.

That's it. That's the whole case. Nothing about obligation to stick with any call based on any signal given or not given.

Anything else anybody gets out of this case, they either read/heard it elsewhere, or made up their own interpretation.

Then follow the procedure you believe it is intended. I have never heard anyone suggest otherwise when they read it but based on your point of view now (that is happening a lot here lately for some reason). So you do what you think the interpretation means. But if you are in my game and I am one of the calling officials or Referee, we are going with what happened first, it is that simple. I think you are reading too much into these situations and I do not see that I am going to convince you otherwise. But in my games we are going with the first call if it is not a block/charge on the same play. I also do not think you answered my question either and if you did I am sorry. What are you going to do if you have a violation and foul called at the same time? Are you going to call both?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What are you going to do if you have a violation and foul called at the same time? Are you going to call both?

Peace

I thought your question was rhetorical. There is a specific case play which says decide which happened first and go with that call.

Which reminds me:

Many years ago, when I first started, I had very limited rules knowledge, very little in the way of mechanics, and no training. Boys jr. high: A1 caught the ball down low and gave a head fake. 2 players bit on the fake and came flying at him. He recoiled to avoid the first and obviously traveled.
He then started up and was clobbered by the 2nd defender. My partner blew his whistle, I assumed to call the travel. I signaled nothing. He then stepped up to the table and started to report the foul. I stepped in. "No, no, before the shot," and made the travel signal. He nodded and walked away. If that happened now, I would keep my opinion to myself. I see this as a case of right mechanics, wrong call. Apparently some classify the double foul in this example this way, but I don't see anything right about it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But if you are in my game and I am one of the calling officials or Referee, we are going with what happened first, it is that simple.

What does being the referee have to do with this?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What does being the referee have to do with this?

If the officials disagree, the Referee gets to break the tie. Not that I have ever seen that happen as most officials just go with the right call in these situations.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I thought your question was rhetorical. There is a specific case play which says decide which happened first and go with that call.

Which reminds me:

Many years ago, when I first started, I had very limited rules knowledge, very little in the way of mechanics, and no training. Boys jr. high: A1 caught the ball down low and gave a head fake. 2 players bit on the fake and came flying at him. He recoiled to avoid the first and obviously traveled.
He then started up and was clobbered by the 2nd defender. My partner blew his whistle, I assumed to call the travel. I signaled nothing. He then stepped up to the table and started to report the foul. I stepped in. "No, no, before the shot," and made the travel signal. He nodded and walked away. If that happened now, I would keep my opinion to myself. I see this as a case of right mechanics, wrong call. Apparently some classify the double foul in this example this way, but I don't see anything right about it.

If that happen to me where I had a call, before a foul I would make that known immediately. The violation happened first, why would you not let everyone know that? And if I was the official that was calling the foul, I would want the right call to be made. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing when it comes to a "blarge" situation where there are signals. You have questioned this before, not sure why this is hard to understand when the committees for the NF and the NCAA Men’s have said this is how to handle the situation.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the officials disagree, the Referee gets to break the tie.

You wanna quote the rule on that?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You wanna quote the rule on that?

I do not need to quote the rule on this because that is the expectation of the Referee in my area and the conferences I work. Referees handle situations when everyone cannot agree or irons out those issues or solves the disagreement. This is the common reason you hear the comment from assignors "I am looking for Referees, not U2s."

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not need to quote the rule on this because that is the expectation of the Referee in my area and the conferences I work.

And besides that, there is no such rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And besides that, there is no such rule.

Everything we do is not governed by a rule in the rulebook. Which is why some people use the Mechanics book and many others do not.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Everything we do is not governed by a rule in the rulebook. Which is why some people use the Mechanics book and many others do not.

Peace

So your mechanics book says "referee gets to break the tie" ??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the officials disagree, the Referee gets to break the tie.

That's only true if the officials can't agree as to whether a goal shall count or not. It's not true for any other dissenting calls. NFHS rules 2-5-3 & 2-6 and case book plays 2.6SitA&B. You knew that.

Of course, in the case of a blarge it IS a tie. You knew that also.


Now you and JAR can carry on carrying on.......

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So your mechanics book says "referee gets to break the tie" ??

We do not use a mechanics book. And this is not about what is in a book. This is about a procedure or expectation. I know I follow procedures in the pre-game that are never in the book. If you and another official have a conflict it is expected the referee is not going to allow them to screw it up or to have some administrative issue. If you guys want to go with a double foul and there is not a double foul, I would do everything to prevent that from happening. And if I did not do that, the assignor might want to know why I let that happen or what I was doing to prevent it. This is not about a book or the rules, but I would not allow you to call a double foul on a non-block/charge play and not have some say as to how it did not fit the current interpretations.

Peace