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.