In other words, one of them blew the call. :sssh:

 

By definition, yes.

 

The error IMO is not that both of them saw it differently. That's understandable since they have different angles.

 

The error is that they didn't eyeball each other when they both came out with the foul call. Easier said than done though.

How would you change it?

 

By taking out that you can call a double foul when only one foul occurred.

By taking out that you can call a double foul when only one foul occurred.

 

I get your desire. I'm asking you how the rule be worded to handle the situation where both refs blow their whistle and signal opposite calls. Would you go AP? Would you wave off both fouls and give the ball back to the team that had the ball?

I get your desire. I'm asking you how the rule be worded to handle the situation where both refs blow their whistle and signal opposite calls. Would you go AP? Would you wave off both fouls and give the ball back to the team that had the ball?

 

Not a bad idea, like off setting penalties in football. Give the ball back to the offense and play on.

I get your desire. I'm asking you how the rule be worded to handle the situation where both refs blow their whistle and signal opposite calls. Would you go AP? Would you wave off both fouls and give the ball back to the team that had the ball?

 

I would give the ranking official the call, if I were writing the rules.

 

As - by definition - there cannot be both a charge and a blocking foul, the current rule that Clyde is referencing seems illogical to me. It must be one or the other. Borrowing from baseball again, there is - by rule - no such thing as a "ties go to the runner" rule. The runner is either out or safe, and it is up to the umpire to make the call. In this case, I would prefer that the ranking official make one call - either a block or a charge.

 

I am a baseball umpire; but have never been a basketball official. Perhaps someone who has been a HS basketball official could comment on whether my solution would work and why/why not.

I get your desire. I'm asking you how the rule be worded to handle the situation where both refs blow their whistle and signal opposite calls. Would you go AP? Would you wave off both fouls and give the ball back to the team that had the ball?

 

Good points!!

 

I would waive off both fouls and use AP.

I would give the ranking official the call, if I were writing the rules.

 

As - by definition - there cannot be both a charge and a blocking foul, the current rule that Clyde is referencing seems illogical to me. It must be one or the other. Borrowing from baseball again, there is - by rule - no such thing as a "ties go to the runner" rule. The runner is either out or safe, and it is up to the umpire to make the call. In this case, I would prefer that the ranking official make one call - either a block or a charge.

 

I am a baseball umpire; but have never been a basketball official. Perhaps someone who has been a HS basketball official could comment on whether my solution would work and why/why not.

 

I agree. :thumb:

I would give the ranking official the call, if I were writing the rules.

 

As - by definition - there cannot be both a charge and a blocking foul, the current rule that Clyde is referencing seems illogical to me. It must be one or the other. Borrowing from baseball again, there is - by rule - no such thing as a "ties go to the runner" rule. The runner is either out or safe, and it is up to the umpire to make the call. In this case, I would prefer that the ranking official make one call - either a block or a charge.

 

I am a baseball umpire; but have never been a basketball official. Perhaps someone who has been a HS basketball official could comment on whether my solution would work and why/why not.

 

Define "ranking" official. In a 2-man there is a referee and an umpire. The referee has final say so I'm assuming he/she would be the "ranking" official. Your "tie goes to the runner" example doesn't apply here because only one umpire makes the call. Basketball doesn't work that way. All officials CAN make a call.

My guess is that the whistles were close enough together that neither official had a double whistle. Both brought up their calls thus the blarge.

Straight out of the NFHS Basketball Case Book. 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.

(B) is actually what occurred during this game. Even though this does not happen very often, the officials got it right. There's no need to clarify the rule, it is stated very clearly.

Define "ranking" official. In a 2-man there is a referee and an umpire. The referee has final say so I'm assuming he/she would be the "ranking" official. Your "tie goes to the runner" example doesn't apply here because only one umpire makes the call. Basketball doesn't work that way. All officials CAN make a call.

 

I understand what you are saying, Clyde, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make with the baseball analogy. My point was that - in baseball - on a close play at a base, the runner must be - by definition - safe or out. There is no default rule (i.e., tie goes to the runner), nor is there any possibility that he can be both out and safe. He must be one or the other.

 

Likewise, basketball cannot - by definition - have both a charge and a block. The two cannot exist together. Either the defender had position (charge) or he did not (block). Yet, apparently (and I've never seen it called this way, but I will defer to your knowledge of the more intricate BB rules) basketball allows such to be called.

 

That's amazing, frankly. I know of no other sport that defines infractions in such a way that two different infractions cannot co-exist, yet then allows the officials to call both on the same play. Until now, I didn't know it could happen in basketball, either.

 

So the question was how would we suggest fixing. Your assumption was correct; I'm proposing that the referee (I'm assuming a two-man crew here for the moment since not all games have three-man crews) confer with the umpire and that the referee make the final determination.

 

How to resolve in a 3-man crew is another question entirely.

It was a 3 man crew.

It was a 3 man crew.

 

Unfortunately, that certainly makes my proposed solution more problematic, doesn't it? In a two man crew, this situation would always involve the referee. In a three man crew...if the head official isn't one of the two who blew whistles for conflicting fouls...how would you decide?

 

Shoot, I'd rather the officials flip a coin rather than call a foul on both. At least then you have a 50-50 chance of the right foul being assessed...if you call a foul on both, then you can be sure the correct player receives a foul...but you also have a 100% chance of assessing one foul on a person incorrectly. That might be the fifth and disqualifying foul, or the fourth, which would force a coach to take the player out of the game for a critical stretch of time...

This should be a "no call, no foul" call and ball goes with posession arrow. Period end of sentence. That would be the simpliest easiest and less hostile (crowd in mind) decision that could be made.

This should be a "no call, no foul" call and ball goes with posession arrow. Period end of sentence. That would be the simpliest easiest and less hostile (crowd in mind) decision that could be made.

No way The ref under the basket called charge should not have been changed. The ref under the basket had it right