Inadvertent Whistle?
 

On one of those awful multi-purpose courts that is marked for every sport imaginable...

A1 is dribbling backwards and steps on a line near the division line that the T mistakes as actually being the division line. T blows his whistle, mechanically signals backcourt and verbalizes "Backco..." at which point he realizes his mistake and looks at L with a deer in the headlights look. They talk it over and T comes out, calls an inadvertent whistle and gives the ball back to A at the POI.

B coach goes crazy. "I officiated for X years, you can't do that!" Coach's rationale was that the mechanic had been given and official had begun verbalizing backcourt.

I know it is not a CE, but is an inadvertent whistle allowed here? Admittedly, I am rather weak in this area.

Sure it's allowed. Mechanics are a means of communication. By rule the mechanic itself means nothing.

I can't think of any place where the rule book states that a signal commits one to a call.

Absolutely. "Coach, be quiet. Inadvertent whistle, ball OOB right here". The faster you resume play the better. Don't listen to the coach, just correct the mistake and move on.

I thought it was rather absurd, but at what point there can the official realize he screwed up? Anytime before the completion of the throw-in by B that would have resulted from the backcourt call (or in more general terms, before the ball becomes live again)?

If he screws up he will either know immediately like in your original story, or he will realize it once the coach who the call is going against colorfully reminds him. :D

Coach apparently had checked out for a few moments and didn't say a word. The player stopped, looked down and pointed at his feet, but wasn't sure what to do because he didn't want to get T'd. (very fast trigger official).

Luckily I wasn't on-court for this one, just watching. I keep waiting for my brilliant screwup like this one (hopefully not worse)...

My brilliant screwup happened a few months ago. I was T, tableside, team A has the ball, coach B says "timeout". I didn't check who was calling the timeout, just blew my whistle. I swear coach B was trying to trick me because he knew I was a green official. Coach A went beserk, yelling "he can't do that!!!" I knew the rule was I had to administer the timeout once I granted it so I had to deal with it. Embarrassing to say the least. If that happens again, I will just yell "inadvertent whistle, ball OOB" and try to get the ball back into play before anyone realizes.

Although at that point the ball is dead anyway and B coach can still call his timeout so you will likely have to listen to it from A coach regardless.

Correct. I am more vigilant now :)

Are you advocating not following what you know to be the proper ruling in a situation simply to save yourself some embarrassment? I can't condone that.

I can think of one! :D
Bad Woody, bad, bad. (Channeling my inner JR in his memory.)

no you can't

Is It The Infamous Blarge ???
 

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

That coach was not an official any amount of years if he's trying to pass along that line of bulls**t.

This makes me wonder how certain violations can be changed after signaled, but others can't.

It is generally accepted that a mistake (official blows whistle using the wrong line) can be taken back as an inadvertant whistle.

An official can reverse an out of bounds violation call (based on information from his/her partner).

Can an official reverse a travel or double dribble call ... I've never seen it done. Say the Trail is in the back court on a fast break and calls what appears from his view to be a double dribble. The Center/Lead who is in front of the play has a better view is 100% certain (perhaps along with the coaches) that the play was not a double dribble. Can the Center/Lead approach his/her partner and offer information that would allow them to change the call?

And are there any fouls where the call can be changed after the fact? I know you can upgrade to a Intentional/Flagrant after discussing with partners, but I can't think of any situation where you could reverse a foul call to a no call based on additional information.

What if two teammates crash into each other and the official whistles and signals a foul only to then realize that no opposing player was involved?

I would absolutely reverse that call ... so I guess there are examples.

Up until 5-6 years ago in NFHS, an inadventent whistle resulted in the possession arrow. Perhaps the coach officiated in a time when this was the case (and he had the arrow).

I don't recall that being the rule (assuming there is TC at the time of the IW)

Nor do I????

Basically, anything can be changed after it is signaled unless it is conflicting judgements of the very same act (was it a block or a charge). Everything else is open for discussions. It may not be advisable, but it is at least an option.

Not only is it accepted but it is actually the rule. What matters is not what the official thought happened but what actually happened. If they blow the whistle and there was no violation, even if they thought there was one to start with, the rules grant the ball back to the team in control or the team that is still due a throwin/FT for a prior infarction....or a AP arrow if none of the above apply.

They could. I did it once. I was trail, partner lead at the baseline. He called a double dribble on a player at half court. The defender had knocked the ball out of the opponents hands after the dribble had ended, creating a new opportunity for a dribble which the offensive play made use of. He didn't see the defender knock the ball away and only knew that the offensive player had already dribbled. He refused to change the call and we talked about it after the game.
The foul call could be overturned if, by rule, it was at a time when a foul could not occur such as a common foul after the ball is dead.

Had one last night in a spring JV girls game: Double whistle, partner is signaling a travel while I have a fist up. We went with the foul as it happened first.

I've also had a partner whistle and signal a BC violation on a throwin play where the receiving player jumped from the FC to the BC and caught the ball in the air. As soon as he whistled it, he called me over to talk himself out of the call. He reversed it.

I've had two partners do this.

And Boy, Did I Feel Foolish ...
 

Been there. Done that. I believe twice in thirty-two years.

This and Cam's comment gave me pause. I believe I was thinking of double fouls, not inadvertent whistles. Sorry, my mistake.

In broader terms, a wise man changes his mind. You anticipate something, but something else happens, but you accidentally make the signal for what was anticipated. Tap yourself on the chest if you want, then make the correct signal. Or, if your partner made a call at the same time, you can drop you signal and walk away. It happens. There is nothing in any book which prevents it.

The Infamous Blarge Rears Its Angry Head ...
 

See 4.19.8 Situation C (Especially when one, or both, coaches see both signals). You're probably not going to be able to walk away, by rule, from this one.

It doesn't mean the same thing in his book as it does in everyone else's.

The case doesn't mention
signals but if it did what the coach saw or didn't see would not affect the call.

Smoke Signals ???
 

"One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1"

Without signals, just exactly how are two officials going to "call" two different fouls? Without signals it would just be a race to the table to see who gets there, and makes the "call", first.

jar thinks the case play means both officials are stubborn and refuse to come to a consensus. jar is the only one here who thinks this. This discussion will go nowhere. Again.

No internet for five days, other than my phone. This thread comes at this question from a slightly different angle than others. The calling official gives a signal which he immediately realizes is a mistake and would like to change. Picture this: I anticipate a block, then the defender gets in position quicker than I thought possible, resulting in a clear charge. I see the play, but my hands don't get the memo in time. I mistakenly signal the block preliminary, then immediately realize the error. I go to the table and report the charge. All this is okay, unless there was a double whistle and my partner gave the charge signal all the way, in which case we must report a double foul?

I would like to know the intent and purpose of this rule.

I have no problem going with a charge in this situation since the "calling" official's intent was to call a charge and he gave an incorrect signal.

In the Blarge scenario you are always arguing about, there is no mistaken signal given. One officials sees a charge, the other sees a block. In NCAA-W by rule you go with PCA. In NFHS, NBA, and NCAA-M you go with a double foul.

The trouble with this is that a mistaken signal and an intended signal can look (can be) exactly alike. It's not about appearance? Apparently it is to most, if not all, since conflicting preliminary signals are what makes a blarge a blarge.

If intent has anything to do with it, why do we never have a blarge simply with two fists in the air. Both guys know what their intent was.

You already know the answer to that, you just simply refuse to acknowledge and/or accept it.

You also seem to lack any confidence in the integrity of any official involved in a blarge.

What does integrity have to do with any of this?