Question and Advice

[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

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

On double whistles, let’s both hold our preliminary signal and not give a block or player control signal. Make eye contact with each other. Give the call to whoever has the primary coverage, most often the lead official, unless you definitely have something different that happened first, in which case we’ll talk about it.

Not exactly what happened last wednesday, when I was tutoring a group of 15 to 19 year old officials at a big tournament. We do two man officiating.

First quarter of the semifinal, the best player of the black team beats his opponent and there's a crash in the center of the restricted area with the secondary defender. The lead official goes up with his fist; the trail whistles, goes up with his fist and without looking at his partner punches. With terror I look at the lead, who also punches. Sigh of relief.

I swear I didn't smack the trail official upside the head with a frying pan, as I was tempted to do.

Ciao

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Which is exactly what I did. I was throwing my fist out more than going up with a fist for the offensive foul and that's why the coach thought it looked like I was calling a travel I guess.

We have all done that one time or another and then realize there is a another whistle. This is why you will learn to just hold your signal a half of a second or be more aware of another whistle. Then again this is a lot easier to do in a 3 Person situation than 2 Person.

Peace

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. "Not just lie, but emphatically lie."

lol...really? Are you serious or kidding? What if it shows up on film? I partially turned my body and my arm wasn't going up in a common foul motion. He knew I had something out of the ordinary. I didn't have to explain it luckily because I lucked out and spent the next 5 mins of play opposite of him and he dropped it by the time I got around to him.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I always try to pre-game this with people I have never worked with or have not worked with enough.

Around here we tend to give this to the primary coverage official unless there are other situations that can dictate who calls it, like who has called more fouls, who has a better angle, where did the ball come from or did something happen first?

If anything is learned this should be talked about every pre-game with people you do not work with normally or you have not worked with in a long time and you can avoid confusion. There are even many ways to handle this other than what I stated, but if you talk about it you can hash-out all the philosophies and perspectives.

Peace

Agreed....and we did pregame this. But because the defensive foul was rather "hard" and took both players to the court in an unorthodox manner to the floor, both of us closed to assure nothing unsporting happened.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

lol...really? Are you serious or kidding? What if it shows up on film? I partially turned my body and my arm wasn't going up in a common foul motion. He knew I had something out of the ordinary. I didn't have to explain it luckily because I lucked out and spent the next 5 mins of play opposite of him and he dropped it by the time I got around to him.

That's what I meant. He said to sell the fact that you had the same call as your partner, which would have been an emphatic lie. Hence I disagreed.

[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.