Was this handled correctly?

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree that this requires two whistles. Official A sounds his whistle, and Official B, a split second later, decides not to sound his whistle because he assumes that Official B has the same call. Subsequently, Official B discovers that Official A did not have the same call, so they get together to discuss it to see if they can get it correct.

This is just like the out of bounds help that we occasionally give each other on weird deflections. One whistle. "Hey partner, did you get a good look at that?"

With the Out of bounds call, you are bringing information to your partner and your partner makes the decision to change the call. In a situation where there are who conflicting calls, then you are discussing what occured first, not merely providing information to your partner. If there is only one whistle, if makes it hard to justify having a discussion on what occured first.

In theory you may be right, but in reality, if the play is one where I'm going to assert to my partner that something else happened first, then I want to have a whistle. If I don't have a whistle, I'm not pretending like I had one when I don't like my partner's call.

The more common scenario that comes to mind for me is when there is a drive to the basket with some contact on the drive. One official has a whistle, the second official assumes that the first has a foul for the contact. However, the first official has a travel and going the other way. I can't imagine running in and making the case for a foul first if I didn't blow my whistle. If I do have a whistle though, even late, then we are going to discuss what happened first.

[Smitty]

This is probably the first time in, well, ever that I agree with Billy Mac. It's summer ball. Most likely 2-man. The play is in a corner nowhere near my primary, but I happen to have eyes on it. I see the bump. I'm not blowing my whistle that far out of my primary. My partner hits his whistle, I am assuming for the bump. Instead he goes the other way. Takes me about 5-10 seconds to determine whether it's worth it for me to bring him info on the bump - but everyone in the gym saw it except my partner, so I'll go say something.

I work a lot of summer ball and I can see this happening easily. They got the play right.

Originally Posted by Smitty

This is probably the first time in, well, ever that I agree with Billy Mac. It's summer ball. Most likely 2-man. The play is in a corner nowhere near my primary, but I happen to have eyes on it. I see the bump. I'm not blowing my whistle that far out of my primary. My partner hits his whistle, I am assuming for the bump. Instead he goes the other way. Takes me about 5-10 seconds to determine whether it's worth it for me to bring him info on the bump - but everyone in the gym saw it except my partner, so I'll go say something.

I work a lot of summer ball and I can see this happening easily. They got the play right.

This doesn't really fit into a call the game absolutely needs. Missed calls happen all the time -- are you going to go to your partner every time this happens? At some point you need to trust your partner. You have primaries for a reason and the expectation is you take care of yours and he'll take care of his. In 2 man the lane is kind of a dual coverage area, especially near the FT line, but unless there is a crew or game saving call in my partners area I'm not coming to get it or approaching my partner about it.

[Smitty]

The play was in the corner, not in the lane. And if it's a call everyone in the gym saw except my partner, why is that not qualifying for something that I go talk to him about? This is summer ball. Whether people want to admit it or not, things are different in summer ball. I'm not going to split hairs over what the letter of the law says - I'm just saying I could see this scenario playing out exactly the way it happened. Even missing the number of the player. It happens.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

This is probably the first time in, well, ever that I agree with Billy Mac. It's summer ball. Most likely 2-man. The play is in a corner nowhere near my primary, but I happen to have eyes on it. I see the bump. I'm not blowing my whistle that far out of my primary. My partner hits his whistle, I am assuming for the bump. Instead he goes the other way. Takes me about 5-10 seconds to determine whether it's worth it for me to bring him info on the bump - but everyone in the gym saw it except my partner, so I'll go say something.

I work a lot of summer ball and I can see this happening easily. They got the play right.

I agree. I don't see anything that prohibits this, even if it looks bad.

[BryanV21]

The bottom line is getting the call right. I just don't think you want to make it a habit of making calls out of your primary.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I agree. I don't see anything that prohibits this, even if it looks bad.

I do. An official is attempting to enforce a ruling for a call which he failed to make at the proper time.
One can't retroactively officiate the game of basketball.
Let me alter the situation slightly to make the point.
A1 is on the wing near the end line and the Lead has PCA. A1 makes a quick move to get around the defender and elevate for a jump shot.
The attacking player clearly lifted his pivot foot prior to starting a dribble. The Lead doesn't call it and when there is contact during the try, Lead calls a defensive foul. 3-person crew: The Trail observed the travel, but didn't blow his whistle because he thought that the Lead had it when his partner's whistle sounded for the foul call. Can the Trail now go tell his partner that A1 traveled before the foul?
I think not. It is just a missed call.

[BryanV21]

The difference is one is a "whale" while the other is a "minnow". I don't think everybody in the gym is going to be going crazy about a possible travel in that scenario.

We can all come up with various scenarios in which we would or wouldn't overrule our partner. In the OP I think doing so was a fine decision.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The difference is one is a "whale" while the other is a "minnow". I don't think everybody in the gym is going to be going crazy about a possible travel in that scenario.

We can all come up with various scenarios in which we would or wouldn't overrule our partner. In the OP I think doing so was a fine decision.

I believe that you are still evaluating the situation improperly.
1. Whether coaches or fans "go crazy" about a play should have no influence on the decisions of the officials or the correctness of their actions according to the books.
2. Your idea that one is a big miss and the other is inconsequential doesn't impact the properness of an official NOT blowing his whistle and then trying to enforce a penalty. The egregiousness of the situation should determine when a partner DOES blow his whistle outside of his PCA.
3. By the book, no official can ever overrule a partner on a foul or violation call.

But just to humor you:...
Let's move my scenario to directly in front of the defending team's coach and say that he is going crazy about the travel and say that his team is up by 1 with 2 seconds left in the game.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that you are still evaluating the situation improperly.
1. Whether coaches or fans "go crazy" about a play should have no influence on the decisions of the officials.
2. Your idea that one is a big miss and the other is inconsequential doesn't impact the properness of an official NOT blowing his whistle and then trying to enforce a penalty. The egregiousness of the situation should determine when a partner DOES blow his whistle outside of his PCA.
3. By the book, no official can ever overrule a partner on a foul or violation call.

But just to humor you:...
Let's move my scenario to directly in front of the defending team's coach and say that he is going crazy about the travel and say that his team is up by 1 with 2 seconds left in the game.

First of all, I don't agree that allowing "crazy" fans/players/coaches to make the calls for you is okay. Nor did I say it was. I merely pointed out that this call in particular was an obvious error, as opposed to the not-so-obvious one you used in your example.

Secondly, I'm taking the context of the situation into account. While I'm not saying it's okay to blow calls in a summer league game, we're not talking about a high school playoff game here. Just like younger officials that start in the lower levels to improve and learn, doing so in a summer league game is fine by me.

Besides, while double whistles are sometimes understandable, they are generally frowned upon (at least in my area). So if an official passed on blowing his/her whistle believing their partner has the call, only to see their partner make a different call, then we don't have a situation in which the official "blew" the call. Correct me if I'm wrong (I by no means have the rule book memorized), but I don't believe a foul call MUST come after a whistle.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that you are still evaluating the situation improperly.
1. Whether coaches or fans "go crazy" about a play should have no influence on the decisions of the officials or the correctness of their actions according to the books.
2. Your idea that one is a big miss and the other is inconsequential doesn't impact the properness of an official NOT blowing his whistle and then trying to enforce a penalty. The egregiousness of the situation should determine when a partner DOES blow his whistle outside of his PCA.
3. By the book, no official can ever overrule a partner on a foul or violation call.

But just to humor you:...
Let's move my scenario to directly in front of the defending team's coach and say that he is going crazy about the travel and say that his team is up by 1 with 2 seconds left in the game.

(Picking nits) Unless we let them go in the wrong direction the whole game, this couldn't happen . . .

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

The difference is one is a "whale" while the other is a "minnow". I don't think everybody in the gym is going to be going crazy about a possible travel in that scenario.

We can all come up with various scenarios in which we would or wouldn't overrule our partner. In the OP I think doing so was a fine decision.

With the sole exception of not considering it "overruling" my partner, I agree. I'm also not too keen of worrying about everyone going crazy, but that's a semantics difference, I think.

I'd be less inclined to do this with a partner with any significant experience, though.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

With the sole exception of not considering it "overruling" my partner, I agree. I'm also not too keen of worrying about everyone going crazy, but that's a semantics difference, I think.

I'd be less inclined to do this with a partner with any significant experience, though.

You're right. It was wrong to use the word "overrule".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Smitty

This is probably the first time in, well, ever that I agree with Billy Mac.