E-mail to the top

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No he hasn't. The issue has long been discussed beyond this discussion or recent thread where he decided to contact Ms. Wynn. And if he wanted true clarification, then make it clear what we have discussed here and what he has actually debated. Do not leave out the most important part of the discussion. If he wants a true answer, then ask that part of the question. If he wants to get what he got with "The officials must come together and decide...." then ask the question he did. No one here to my knowledge has said simply blowing the whistle means we have to stand by our calls each. It is clear the issue is the preliminary signal and if we still go to a double foul.

Peace

Rut, there were two e-mails. Apparently, you missed the second one. You were right, too. She did say to check with your state.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, here's the rest of it.

Me: Thanks for the quick response. The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation. Please advise.


Her: It does not change the equation. They still should come together and talk to make a final decision. If the decision is to go one way over another then that person goes to the table to report. If no one wants to give in, then they go to the table to report both fouls.

Ultimately, you should talk with your state office to determine if this is the direction they want the officials to go.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There were two e-mails. Apparently, you missed the second one ... The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals ...

I don't like the word "mistakenly". Neither official mistakenly gave a wrong preliminary signal. That would occur if both thought that it was a charge, and one gave a block signal. They both had what they had. No mistake was made in the preliminary signal. It's not a signaling mistake.

One of the calls was a mistake.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't like the word "mistakenly". Neither official mistakenly gave a wrong preliminary signal. That would occur if both thought that it was a charge, and one gave a block signal. They both had what they had. No mistake was made in the preliminary signal. It's not a signaling mistake.

One of the calls was a mistake.

The mistake is not what the signals were, but the fact that both made preliminary signals at all on the double whistle.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The mistake is not what the signals were, but the fact that both made preliminary signals at all on the double whistle.

I was referring to the way the play was described in the email ("mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals").

We all know what the mistake was. The play should have been a charge, and one official called a block. Or the play should have been a block, and one official called a charge.

The caseplay still doesn't encourage us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, did you get a good look at his feet?"), and come up with a single, unified call. I wish it did. Rather, it encourages us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, remember 4.19.8 Situation C ?"(Yeah. That's right. That's the way we discuss things here in my little corner of Connecticut)), and come up with the double foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was referring to the way the play was described in the email ("mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals").

We all know what the mistake was. The play should have been a charge, and one official called a block. Or the play should have been a block, and one official called a charge.

The caseplay still doesn't encourage us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, did you get a good look at his feet?"), and come up with a single, unified call. I wish it did. Rather, it encourages us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, remember 4.19.8 Situation C ?"(Yeah. That's right. That's the way we discuss things here in my little corner of Connecticut)), and come up with the double foul.

The caseplay, in my view doesn't encourage or discourage anything. The calls/rulings have already been made. This is a given. All it does is tell us how to administer the penalties. When I first saw the play I thought the whole point was that the basket could count since the foul on the offensive player is not a PC foul when it is part of a double foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When I first saw the play I thought the whole point was that the basket could count since the foul on the offensive player is not a PC foul when it is part of a double foul.

I've only been keeping my books since 1996-97, but I can certainly remember my first time with this caseplay (further back than 96-97, probably got a refresher exam question wrong), and like just another ref, I thought that the main lesson to be learned was to count the basket.

I've read this caseplay over, and over, again and still can't figure out why these two officials don't learn their lesson, they keep on making the same mistake over, and over, again, they keep on giving preliminary signals on double whistles. Why can't they both just stick their fist up in the air, get together to discuss it, and have one official come out of the discussion with one unified call, probably a correct call.

Unfortunately, sometimes one official doesn't hear the other's whistle, may also be screened out from visual contact with his partner, and feel the need to give a strong preliminary signal. That's what this caseplay is for. Maybe it's a once in a career situation, but the caseplay is clear, in my opinion, on how to handle it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've read this caseplay over, and over, again and still can't figure out why these two officials don't learn their lesson, they keep on making the same mistake over, and over, again, they keep on giving preliminary signals on double whistles. Why can't they both just stick their fist up in the air, get together to discuss it, and have one official come out of the discussion with one unified call, probably a correct call.

Actually, no mention is made of signals at all. There is no way to tell by reading this whether any preliminary signal was made by anyone.