E-mail to the top

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

True, but it's those pesky preliminary signals that can get us into this mess, and why, at least in these parts, we are strongly advised not to give preliminary signals on double whistles.

Since preliminary signals aren't mentioned in the casebook play, just exactly what does "call", or "rule", mean, especially in the case of opposing "calls", or "rules". How does one know, be it a partner, a coach, or a fan, that there are opposing "decisions". Do we have both officials going to the table to report different fouls, and only then find out that they are opposing "decisions"?

I hope that were not talking about two officials standing in the middle of the court, huddled, by themselves, arguing over whose whistle is bigger than the other's, with neither yielding to the other. That's not what we're talking about. Right? Please agree with me on that.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Since preliminary signals aren't mentioned in the casebook play, just exactly what does "call", or "rule", mean, especially in the case of opposing "calls", or "rules". How does one know, be it a partner, a coach, or a fan, that there are opposing "decisions". Do we have both officials going to the table to report different fouls, and only then find out that they are opposing "decisions"?

Dictionary definition of rule: to decide or declare judicially or authoritatively

This, to me, is a perfect description of this play, with the keyword being decide.
This decision results in the call, which is subsequently reported to the table.

A whistle or a signal is neither a ruling nor a call. Either may be done by accident. Not true with a ruling. In no other place in the rules does a signal obligate us to do anything. Why would it possibly do so here?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This decision results in the call, which is subsequently reported to the table. A whistle or a signal is neither a ruling nor a call.

So when you signal a travel violation, that's not ruling (decision) until you "report to the table"? My IAABO mechanics manual (not sure abut NFHS mechanics) doesn't even require us to verbalize "traveling", so I guess that we never make a real ruling (decision).

The whistle is a ruling (decision), a ruling (decision) to stop the clock, especially when accompanied by a fist, open hand, or thumbs up, signal.

When I sound my whistle, put up a fist, and then put a hand behind my head, I've ruled (decided) that player control foul has just occurred. It's as simple as that. I can later change my ruling (decision) for some reason, but at that point, that's my ruling (decision).

I'm more than willing to follow a thoughtful train of ideas from you on this interesting issue, but you're grasping at straws here.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So when you signal a travel violation, that's not ruling (decision) until you "report to the table"? My IAABO mechanics manual (not sure abut NFHS mechanics) doesn't even require us to verbalize "traveling", so I guess that we never make a real ruling (decision).

The whistle is a ruling (decision), a ruling (decision) to stop the clock, especially when accompanied by a fist, open hand, or thumbs up, signal.

I'm more than willing to follow a thoughtful train of ideas from you on this interesting issue, but you're grasping at straws here.

The ruling (decision) takes place in your head. It is immediately followed by a whistle and a signal to communicate this decision to others. This ruling (decision) can be changed before the call is reported, sometimes resulting in no call at all.

"My partner had granted a timeout before the foul."

[Raymond]

It's funny, when coaches see conflicting signals involving PC and a block, they expect a blarge to be reported. Who is teaching them that?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's funny, when coaches see conflicting signals involving PC and a block, they expect a blarge to be reported. Who is teaching them that?

Apparently you are.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's funny, when coaches see conflicting signals involving PC and a block, they expect a blarge to be reported. Who is teaching them that?

I doubt that very few actually know that. Most coaches have a high school, or college, teammate who is now an official, who becomes their expert witness. Like I stated earlier, we have a few coaches around these parts who are former officials. And keep in mind that most, but not all, can actually read. Bazinga.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This ruling (decision) can be changed before the call is reported, sometimes resulting in no call at all.

It can even be changed after the ruling (decision) is reported. "Twenty-one. No. The foul was actually on twenty-two. Sorry".

We digress. Back to the casebook play. We all agree that rulings (decisions) can be changed, but this casebook play seems to suggest that these two opposing rulings (decisions) should not be changed.

What's so special about this play that the NFHS suggests that we have to go with both rulings (decisions), one that may be incorrect, when in many other cases we can change our rulings (decisions)?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apparently you are.

Nope, I only started officiating in 2001 and coaches already had that expectation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Nope, I only started officiating in 2001 and coaches already had that expectation.

First, I don't think either of us will let the expectations of a coach be the deciding factor in anything. Second, I don't think of this as something that happens often enough to create an expectation. How many have you personally been involved in?