Question and Advice
 

Three-person boys varsity game. Ball was thrown into the post on my side of the court while I was in the C position. My Lead was coming across, so I was officiating the open look I had and was ready to slide up to Trail and the next advantageous moment.

A44 Catches the ball with his back to the basket and the defender (B15). A44 turns and as he turns he lowers his shoulder, however at the same time (or very close to it) B15 is swiping down hard and catches A44's arm. Both go to the ground in what appears to be a hard (not intentional nor flagrant) defensive foul.

Both lead and I blow our whistles I was intending to go with an offensive foul, but only got my arm part way up when I recognized my partners whistle as well as closed on the two players than have now crashed to the floor. My partner on the other hand has a defensive foul on B15 and is also on top of things assuring that nothing extra is occurring with bodies on the floor.

In hindsight I wish I would have handled things differently, but because the "hard" foul by the defender I felt it would be very difficult to "sale" my offensive foul even if it actually occurred first, and hence didn't approach my partner to inform him that I had something different (my mistake).

In this situation where my arm moved upward but stopped short of a preliminary signal we aren't obligated to call a double foul....or are we?

To add to the already complex situation, the B's coach heard my whistle blow and saw my arm move and astutely began to point it out yelling that I was going to call a travel prior to the foul. The coach boisterously begged and pleaded for the "travel", making me feel even worse for not having communicated better with my partner.

So in short, I'm asking for the sagacious advice of those who frequent this forum on how to have better handled that situation...in particularly with the coach noticing my arm being raised and then quickly dropped.

Thanks

It's not a foul until we say it is
 

You're not obligated to call a double foul unless and until you both signal conflicting calls, i.e. one signals charge and one signals block.

If you both whistle it, and even if you both go up with the foul sign, you still have the right to defer to your partner. You are not obligated to do so and may signal what you think you believe you probably saw, in which case it is a double foul. However, in the absence of conflicting mechanics, and where you have deferred to your partner, there is no double foul.

Perhaps I should say it's not a blarge until we say it is.

You don't have to defer to your partner. Go to him and discuss it. The discussion usually goes like, "I've got this and you've got that and this occurred first so we go with it." If both happened at the exact same time, then you've got a double foul, which is rare.

I defer to my partner when we've both got the same, usually obvious call, and he is in his primary.

I think it looks worse if you've got an arm that partially goes up and you don't discuss it with your partner. Then, the B coach has a legitimate beef. If you discuss it then you have something concrete to tell that coach about what happened.

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). That is because they're one act for which two officials have opposing opinions. (no need to reopen that debate again).

When one of the two fouls is something else, they're most likely not two opinions of the same contact but two different contacts.

In your case, it sounds like A charged while B committed an illegal use of hands foul. If one clearly came before the other, you could go with that and rule that the other was incidental (non-intentional dead ball contact). You could also go with a double foul if they were approximately the same time but the rules don't require it.

You're right

Here is what I would ask.

How did you pregame this?

Who had primary call? If it was lead's primary let lead have it, If it was your primary you should have first shot?

There are going to be double whistles, get your hand up and keep it there. If you acknowledge that it is his call, then tell coach he had call, etc. Timidity will kick your butt....

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.

1. No, you are not obligated to call a double foul.
2. When you hit your whistle, once heard your partner's whistle (and/or saw his hand), you had "options."
A. You can defer the call to him,
B. You can get together and discuss what you each have,
C. He can come defer to the call to you,
D. See who gets to the table first (OK, kidding with that one).

Option A (or Option C) is the best option IF there is a 99.99% chance you both had the same call. In most situations, this will be the case. Option B is a much better option if there is doubt as to whether a violation happened before a foul OR if there is a possibility that your partner had a different foul call (perhaps two different defensive players involved OR a potential conflict between a player control foul and a defensive foul).

Arguably, the primary official in this case was somewhat gray -- since the lead had just arrived and you seemed to be in transition from center to trail. In these situations, I think that the best solution from a game management perspective is to go with the call that is the easier sell. In this case, by your own description, your partner's call was likely the best solution.

In this case, since YOU KNEW you likely had a different call (based on YOUR DESCRIPTION of the play) and you knew that the identification of the primary official may have been in doubt, you should have gone to him with what you had AND recommended that he take the call.

In lieu of that, at the very least, you should have gone to the coach and SOLD the fact that you had the SAME CALL your partner had. ;)

If he had been a truly observant coach, he would have noticed your fist coming up (rather than an open hand) and would not have been arguing for a travel, but rather the call you actually had. In that case, you still would have been better off SELLING your partner's call (based on your description of the play).

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.

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

My opinion is that if it is a double whistle, it is dependent on who has the best angle. U have to know not only what u saw but see the play through your partner's position's eyes. If the play curled on you and you ended up with a closed look or a look that u believe is not as good as your partner's, then I believe you defer to him, but if you believe you had the best look of the whole entire crew then you owe it to them to trust what you saw, know that its the correct call and make it. I'm not big on having a bartered discussion on what should we do in regards to a def. Foul or off. Foul. Someone had the better look and saw the right thing, you just have to understand and realize who that was. There have plenty of times where I have deferred where, for example, an off. Player hooks a guy on a curl and I'm going offensive and my partner has a defensive foul and I give it up to him/her bc I know they had a good "see thru" look prior to the curl and I have also had the same play where I still call off. Foul bc the whistle came from the Lead After the curl had taken place and now the hooking of the defender makes it look like, in the lead's eyes, that the defender walks into the offensive player's space but it was the hook that made it look that way.

I have one question and one observation.

Question: Was the L still coming across from the "B" position when he made his foul call or was he already in the "C" position?

Observation: Whether he was still coming across or already in the "C" position, it is my opinion that since A44 had his back to the basket I think that this is the C's call because he has been watching the entire play.

MTD, Sr.

Camron:

Come on. What better way is there to start the New Year and for me to start a rousing debate about whether A1 can commit a charging foul against B1 at the same time that B1 is commiting a blocking foul against A1. Where is your sense of adventure. :D

MTD, Sr.

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

From My Pregame ...
 

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.

Keep in mind that Connecticut is not only the "Land of Steady Habits", but is also the "Land of Two Person Games".

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.

Yep.

Peace

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I want to know what Multiple Sports thinks.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

So your mechanics book says "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.......:D

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

If you and your crew routinely confer to settle such matters, and especially is you are the senior member and they look to you in such a situation, I have no problem with that, sounds good to me. But the fact is, if they do screw it up, call a double foul when it shouldn't be or whatever, and are not receptive to your advice, there is nothing you can do about it.

Offering Information ???
 

Sounds perfect if both of you had sounded your whistles, especially if you came up with an open hand, and your partner came up with a fist. I believe that just another ref was saying that he didn't even sound his whistle in the example he gave, and although he didn't state it, the play may have even been outside of his primary coverage area.

Are you going to give your partner information on a call outside of your primary coverage area, when you don't even sound your whistle? We occasionally do this, that is, offer information, on tipped out of bounds calls, so I'm not sure that this would be appropriate, or not, on this specific play?

A Chain That Had To Be Yanked ...
 

And this changed? When?

We've Come A Long Way Since Gutenberg ...
 

I have no problem with your local organization not using the NFHS manual, or the IAABO manual, but don't you have some guidelines written down somewhere so that rookie officials in your local area have something to study, to either pass some type of floor exam, or to improve their mechanics?

Who said it changed?

I do own a current rule book now. I had never seen a rule book my first few years, and the first one I had was 5 years old or more.

I hope to attend a camp of yours someday. First thing taught is how to post images?:D

Most officials are not making the argument you are. Most officials agree that I have come in contact to call what happen first. I have yet other than you on this site to make such an argument that we must go with your interpretation of the rule. So this is not a hard issue with the people I have come in contact with. And the only situation I have ever heard someone to follow is you. I do not think I have to worry about this being an issue. If it is I am sure the Referee would be expected to not allow this to happen when something clearly happen first. Or that official that insisted to not follow the rules might not be working in that league or as many games in the future.

Peace

No.

I have said this before; we have the model of the NCAA when it comes to assigning in most areas I work. If the conference assignor likes you, they hire you. If they do not like you, they will not hire you. Most are not going to hire you without seeing you at camp. Our associations are only training organizations that teach guys how to officiate and sometimes run camps for the membership. It is up those that want to improve to attend the meetings or camps to get better. Those that know what they are doing will be noticed.

We are independent contractors here. You do what it takes to get better or you will get passed over like other professions.

Peace

Depends on the situation. I have given information before and will again. It does not mean that it is required or that it always happens.

Peace

The argument I'm making now is that if the other two officials call a foul, even if you are the referee, it is their call, not yours.

And the point I am making is that they are going to decide if they can work it out. If they are not going to agree we are not going to blatantly misapply the rule and go with a double foul when a double foul is not warranted. And if that was not the case then assignors would never assign the Referee, they would let the officials decide on their own and in many cases the Referee has to file a game report on things that happen in the game. This would not happen on my watch without some convincing whether it is my call or not.

Peace

Your choice, Snaqs. I suppose your option would have been to have told the coach that you had something different and that your over-zealous partner took the call from you and may end up costing your team the game, coach.

I will support my partner in this case -- especially based on the OP's description of what happened. Disagree if you wish.

Lies, Damned Lies, And White Lies ...
 

“Coach, he was right there and had a great angle.”

“Coach, he had a great look, but if you have a specific question, you’ll have to ask him, he be over here in just a minute.”

Yep and yep.

Peace

Really? You got that from what I wrote? How?

You don't have to lie in order to back your partner.

Every pregame I am at the following, rather simplistic, sentences are uttered:
"Double whistles are good. Double signals are bad." (SOMETIMES it is uttered like Frankenstein, just to liven things up!):)

Take one drink in the "Camp-Speak Drinking Game."

+1

...and, I guess, based on what you wrote, you don't have to tell the whole truth, either, do you? Once again, you handle this situation however you would like. I will do the same. I will respectfully disagree with you and you with me.

No, he doesn't need the whole truth. If a coach asks what I had, and I had the same thing, I still probably wouldn't tell him to avoid him picking up on my contrasting answers with a different play later (or earlier).

I have a very difficult time offering a bald faced lie, though, in an avocation that depends heavily upon our integrity.

But you're right, do what works for you.