Question and Advice

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only conflicting fouls that we're obligated to turn into a double foul are a block and a charge (note that a charge is NOT necessarily the same as a player control foul).

This is a revelation. Around here the charge signal is almost never seen as a preliminary. Usually it is just PC, sometimes supplemented with a point in the proper direction. You mean to say if you signal block, and I signal only a PC, it is ok to discuss and come up with one call? I'm sure others will chime in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is a revelation. Around here the charge signal is almost never seen as a preliminary. Usually it is just PC, sometimes supplemented with a point in the proper direction. You mean to say if you signal block, and I signal only a PC, it is ok to discuss and come up with one call? I'm sure others will chime in.

Nope, he's saying if the prelim signal is given on any play other than a block/charge sitch, you can do get together.
If, however, it's given on a block/charge play, you cannot.

I've chimed and will now unchime unless something new comes up in this pointless discussion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is a revelation. Around here the charge signal is almost never seen as a preliminary. Usually it is just PC, sometimes supplemented with a point in the proper direction. You mean to say if you signal block, and I signal only a PC, it is ok to discuss and come up with one call? I'm sure others will chime in.

Perhaps you have A1 hooking B1 with their elbow while, at about the same time, B1 contacts A1 by sticking their knee out....a PC foul and a block....but not a charge and a block. One official sees the hook, one sees the knee. Two independent actions...decide which came first.


B1 has obtains LGP position when A1 crashes into B1. However, B1 swats at the ball and smacks A1 on the face/arm/etc. You have a charge/PC and illegal use of hands. Again, two different actions...not a block/charge. Decide which came first.

So yes, if it is not a block vs. charge decision, the rules don't obligate the officials to a double foul. When you have the double whistle with both having shown their signals, the officials are going to be talking anyway and it should become clear that one wasn't calling a block/charge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So yes, if it is not a block vs. charge decision, the rules don't obligate the officials to a double foul. When you have the double whistle with both having shown their signals, the officials are going to be talking anyway and it should become clear that one wasn't calling a block/charge.

Yep.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Perhaps you have A1 hooking B1 with their elbow while, at about the same time, B1 contacts A1 by sticking their knee out....a PC foul and a block....but not a charge and a block. One official sees the hook, one sees the knee. Two independent actions...decide which came first.


B1 has obtains LGP position when A1 crashes into B1. However, B1 swats at the ball and smacks A1 on the face/arm/etc. You have a charge/PC and illegal use of hands. Again, two different actions...not a block/charge. Decide which came first.

So yes, if it is not a block vs. charge decision, the rules don't obligate the officials to a double foul. When you have the double whistle with both having shown their signals, the officials are going to be talking anyway and it should become clear that one wasn't calling a block/charge.

I understand all this. But according to most, the whole deal hinges on the conflicting signals. So, according to this logic, in this case, where it is possible that both fouls occurred at the same time, we are not obligated to report a double foul. But, in the case of a block/charge, where it is not possible for both to occur at the same time, we are obligated to report a double foul.

Seems really odd to me.

[JugglingReferee]

I want to know what Multiple Sports thinks.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I understand all this. But according to most, the whole deal hinges on the conflicting signals. So, according to this logic, in this case, where it is possible that both fouls occurred at the same time, we are not obligated to report a double foul. But, in the case of a block/charge, where it is not possible for both to occur at the same time, we are obligated to report a double foul.

Seems really odd to me.

The whole deal hinges on conflicting signals for a very specific play. Take it up with the rules committee.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I understand all this. But according to most, the whole deal hinges on the conflicting signals. So, according to this logic, in this case, where it is possible that both fouls occurred at the same time, we are not obligated to report a double foul. But, in the case of a block/charge, where it is not possible for both to occur at the same time, we are obligated to report a double foul.

Seems really odd to me.

It is not odd when this has been covered very specifically by the rules committee. They make it clear that this applies to a block/charge situation not any other. If one thing happens before the other than that has always been acceptable to go with a foul that took place first. And a hook before a knee being stuck out would suggest something happened first not at the same time.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not odd when this has been covered very specifically by the rules committee. They make it clear that this applies to a block/charge situation not any other. If one thing happens before the other than that has always been acceptable to go with a foul that took place first. And a hook before a knee being stuck out would suggest something happened first not at the same time.

Peace

There could be two separate contacts in a block/charge. One officials sees the first, the other sees the second.

And, yeah, any way you want to look at it, it's odd.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There could be two separate contacts in a block/charge. One officials sees the first, the other sees the second.

And, yeah, any way you want to look at it, it's odd.

I guess it could be, but that is not what the committee has suggested. This is why you should take this up with them and not us. I only know what is in the interpretations and I have seen nothing that says we have to accept something that clearly took place second and there are conflicting signals. If that is the case what do you do when there is a violation and a foul? I see that often should we go with both or do we choose one?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There could be two separate contacts in a block/charge. One officials sees the first, the other sees the second.

And, yeah, any way you want to look at it, it's odd.

Unlikely, but if that is the case, then you have two options...the first foul made the ball dead or you have a double foul (if the first foul is the block and if continuous motion applies). The rule that forces the double is only applicable if it is a single contact that two officials judge differently. It says nothing about calling two different fouls.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I understand all this. But according to most, the whole deal hinges on the conflicting signals. So, according to this logic, in this case, where it is possible that both fouls occurred at the same time, we are not obligated to report a double foul. But, in the case of a block/charge, where it is not possible for both to occur at the same time, we are obligated to report a double foul.

Seems really odd to me.

No, it hinges on conflicting signals and opinions about the same contact....not just conflicting signals alone. Neither official's judgement of the contact is considered better. But when there are two opinions on unrelated infractions, there is no conflict between the judgment of the two officials.

[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.