Purdue - IU Blarge
 

Anybody see this game last night?

In particular this play the ruled a double foul and both bigs for each team picked up their 5th PF.

I don't officiate NCAA but I am curious what the forum thinks of the play. What do you have and also, how can they rule double foul here? Is it because L called block and C had player control? Is there something in the rule book that allows that....

Bryant and Swanigan foul out on double foul - ESPN Video

Sorry - I don't know how to put the video in the post other than linking it.

NFHS and NCAA men's rule this as a double foul bc of opposing calls by two officials. In NCAA women's, can conference to attempt to get correct call.

IMO, women's game has the correct thinking. To me, it is 100% impossible to have a block and a PC. One happened and one didn't. We should have ability by rule to try to get it right.

Should have been a charge. Double is right by rule given what the officials did.

I too felt it was player control foul...I didn't watch every minute of the game but I guess these guys had a rough night. Missed Haas from PU raking one of IUs bigs that left him on the floor and they went to the other end and played 14 seconds before a whistle. There was also a ball in the cylinder that got swatted back out top that probably should have been GT or BI.

Someone also pointed out in the Minnesota game from Weds a kid stepped clearly OOB and the official on the baseline (don't know if he was L or they were transitioning to T) missed it.

Rough week for B1G officiating crews...but hey, those guys are there for a reason.

The lead official never signals does he? Why break into jail here and cause all this indecision? C banged the PC right away, just let him take it! I had it as a PC all the way BTW. Edit to add; yes he did, he gave the one arm block signal, which I have to say is new to me.

Who's call should this be? Shouldn't the C wait on this? For NFHS can one of us "pick up our flag" and defer to the other?

He's got one hand up, and the other indicating a block. It's an odd mechanic.

I had a charge when I saw it live last night on TV. From the perspective of one who only does NF level games, I have indeed been party to rare instances when one official called a block and the other a charge; however, we conferenced and resolved it as either but never issued a "double foul". Furthermore, as I recall our own conferences were quite brief as compared to the lengthy process of "locating dance partners" that occurred in the case under study.

Also, this is my first time seeing a half-way block [i.e., one fist up and hand on hip] by the L. Is this some new mechanic that those of you who ref college are doing now?

I can't speak to the mechanic, but it looked like he was in a hurry to get the call off. Maybe wanted to be the first to make a call so the C doesn't go fishing in his pond. The interesting thing is didn't the matchup start in T's primary? Good thing he held off, or they might have had 3 whistles.

By rule, you may not do this.

My FB feed was pretty funny last night with this (being in the heart of IU and Purdue country...all the while being a Michigan fan).....of course all the IU faithful were crying for block and all the Purdue folks saying charge...

I was in the PU camp, I thought Swanigan played it perfect and Bryant lowered his shoulder. Bad angle for the L...

That's a good reason to always be patient on signals in gray areas. Whenever I work with new partners, the R usually brings up to make sure we have eye contact on double whistles so we don't have blarges. Double whistles shouldn't happen, but sometimes it does and you've just got to be good communicators.

I love Leads reaction when he sees C's call. Shouldnt they have sent teams to the bench?

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the huddle/post game. L looked pretty heated, enough that it appeared T went to him to calm him down.

as many stated already...
NFHS Case Book 4.19.8 Situation C
many argue that you have to get together and decide, but you must by rule go with the double personal foul.

on your note...i look at it differently. there is nothing wrong with double whistles. they happen and will always happen. but there is A LOT wrong with double preliminary signals. but you are right. pregame it and JUST BE PATIENT. slow down and post. pass it off to the PCA official or claim it and be strong.

So let's talk about administration after the fact. Notice the bucket was good off the shot as well (but not released before the call). Report both fouls, count the bucket for 2 for IU but no FT?, ball goes to Purdue at POI? or is it report both fouls, no bucket (not released), go to team in possession at POI?

The C had the best look and made the right call. Full stop.

by rule you have a double foul. It's very clear and is only really applicable if both parties have a preliminary. The L should have had second crack as this was the C's call the whole way.

Should they have counted the basket? In NF, you count the basket if successful on a blarge. Not sure of the NCAAM rule-set.

I saw that too. Pretty funny actually.

Sigh....the BTN says they were both ejected after the play because of their 5th foul. I wish the Network could get the terminology right. Ejection vs DQ are two different things...

Swanigan, Bryant Ejected After Double Foul - BTN

Wait. You cannot score a basket with an offensive foul by the shooter under either NFHS or NCAA-M rules, even if the ball has been released before contact. Why would this change if a double foul is ruled? The offensive part of the double foul negates any basket that could be made.

The key is what the POI is....if the ball has been released then you go to the arrow because no team control. If the ball has not be released then you give the ball OOB to the team who had it in possession, in this case Indiana.

That is not the case for a blarge - see (as it was in 2012-2013, which is what I have at work) case play 4.19.8 Situation C. RULING: Even though Airborne shooter A1 has committed a charging foul, it is not a PC 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 and play is resumed at the POI, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line.

Dang it you beat me to it...GJ

I am very rarely correct on the forum, but I knew I was correct because I remember reading this years ago and saying "that's weird".

I was wondering what the ruling is under the NCAAM rule set.

Because them's the rules. It's a double foul, not a combination of a player control foul and a block.

(Edit: I've been beaten to this multiple times. What I get for filling my coffee, I suppose.)

Yes, one can, and should, in my opinion. Most disagree. Consult your local listings.

We had a blarge in a state final a couple years ago. Personally, I think CT being a 2-person state and then going to 3-person for the state quarters and up helped cause it. Regardless, Peter Webb comes to our finals and evaluates the officials, providing feedback. You can be darn sure this adjudicated as a double foul.

No, you cannot pick one over the other. Sorry, but that poster that keeps telling everyone you can, does not seem to recognize that every single time this is brought up, this is the standard in the current book and I have never heard anyone from the NF contradict this position. Unfortunately at this moment, you cannot choose once you signal. This is why you do not signal at all in a double whistle situation in a hurry.

Peace

Hasn't the ball been released in that case play? (I don't have the books handy).

We did go round-an-round on this when a double foul became POI (many years ago). If it's before the try -- team in control. If it's after the release -- count the basket (or arrow if the try is unsuccessful). If it's during the try (before the release) -- ?

If it's before the release, it's in player control, therefore team control, right?

Then it's a double foul and A gets the ball back POI.

Ok, I see the ball was released after contact in this game so the basket wouldn't have counted in either rule set.

This is a charge, and I do believe that the C had the best look, it opens right up to him. However, the C needs to be far more patient, he should have been 3rd in line for a whistle here. This play was never in the Cs primary.

The fact that every time we see this happen in a college game they go with a DF should tell you most of what you need to know.

That the college system is flawed? :D

This line of thinking is about as "old school" as 3-person thinking can get.

The drive might initiate in the trail's primary, but he has a terrible look at this play. The L has to go a long way to get this from the end line, too.

Top half of the lane is a convergence area of primary coverages. The C is looking right through those players and clearly has the best look at the play. The L is just as wrong for hitting his hip as the C is for punching it right away.

Out of curiosity, how would you explain it to a coach in a close game that knows the rule and just had his best ball handler (or shooter or big man) foul out, while the other team's player doesn't? Let's say they both had 4 fouls.

Well that is a different issue, but they want a double foul on this and the rules support this. There was a video early in the year (Kansas vs. Indiana) where a blarge happen and the NCAA Supervisor said that this was to be a double foul by rule. So it appears no one agrees with you on this that matters.

Peace

Not sure an explanation is necessary, but if you feel that it is, in this case the explanation is clearly that: "My partner had a better look at it, coach."

And if everybody in the NCAA is on the same page, that's fine. But the play in this thread is a perfect example of why the system is flawed. Two officials made two calls. One is right, the other is wrong, so the logical thing to do is.......... REPORT BOTH OF THEM??

Why?

and when the coach says....

"But by rule this is a double foul" .....


your response is ??

We want to screw one of you.. could you give us 5 minutes to decide who was a dumnut and we will get back to you...

Ask the committee of coaches and administrators who write the rules!!

Is the system flawed or is the official's mechanics flawed? The system as that this is the call of the Lead Official. So the Center should not even be expecting to signal on this play. Now we can question the judgment on this particular play with the official in the lead, but this is his call by mechanic. That is more of a hard fast "rule" in the NCAA level than it is in the NF or high school level mechanics. Because if you pick one, then the debate will be over who was actually right that should have reported the foul. So you cannot win either way. The bottom line is the Center should have held up but he was so eager to make a call, he helped cause this situation. He was also the person the furthest away from the call, so he should have been very judicious in making this call in the first place.

Peace

Are we talking NFHS? "No, it isn't."

In this case, both.

No more than the debate over whether any other close call was right or wrong.

If you get the call right, you win.

At the end of the day, the rules makers decided they wanted that to take place. We do not make the rules or even have much suggestion other than a survey. So if they want that changed, they will change it. And it will still be "flawed" in my eyes because the coach or player that has the "wrong" call called on them, we will be arguing about a different aspect of the rule. Again, you are not going to make everyone happy and I would not try to. The rule is the rule, not much I am going to worry about it at this point.

Peace

Are you trolling us or being serious?

Serious answer:

I would likely get myself ejected and then do everything I could after the fact to get you fired.

For everyone else, you may just as well ignore JAR on this topic. He's been on his island for a while on this and he's not climbing into a lifeboat anytime soon.

And the coach that has been on the "better look" official all game as having it out for them, that is going to go over well. At least the "blarge" is now preventable as it is rare that anyone has these in the first place. But now in this situation you pick one and we know how well coaches just accept our positions on everything we call.

Peace

Absolutely serious. We have debated this multiple times over the years. Yes, the famous case play tells us how to proceed when this call is made. But the question is when this is necessary. The case says one official "rules" one thing and the other the opposite. Nothing says that either official cannot change his "ruling" at any point before it is reported. Nothing about signals in the case play, preliminary or otherwise. I was advised to take my argument to a higher power, so I did. Sent an email to the editor of the NFHS books and she agreed with me, along with my assignor and the supervisor of officials in my state.

She did not simply agree with you. She stated a position and you did not inform her of the conflict to that position (according to your posting her). She gave you a position of a level she came from, which might have been correct for that level, but was not for the level she took over. And she also did not change anything as in the current book the interpretation or language has not at all changed. Again, I do not know what your supervisor of your state does, if I recall they had a mechanic that no one in the country ever did with their 2 person system based on what someone said that once was in the NF Rules Editor position. So what your local state does is great, but then make that clear. No person in my state has taken that position and this situation has come up multiple times since we had that conversation about what Mrs. Wynn apparently responded to you.

Peace

I have no idea what this means.

This is a quote from her email:

Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.


I don't know how much more plain it can be.

and you didn't have the guts to challenge her...... (it's not the first time she was wrong)

that makes it worse

Challenge her about what?

About issuing a ruling contrary to the rules and case play that she presided over.


Why didn't she see to it that this was publicized to all FED members? (I know the answer)

Obviously, I don't see it as contrary. A bunch of people here read the email who do see it as contrary. As far as I know, nobody else contacted her.

Ok....

how about a link or an official correspondence from your state advising how this is to be handled?

you would be wrong

That's why I said as far as I know. So enlighten me. Who else did contact her, and what was the result?

Don't have one. Don't need one.

Because it does not exist

Exactly and that is why no such change has ever taken place in the interpretations that she precised over. It is still in the casebook and clearly he never pressed her on the contradiction. That is why I do not care what she told him, I care what she has done since. I even do not care what his state person says if there is nothing in writing. I am a clinician with the state and people say, "Why don't they put it in writing?" I agree with that position and ask for clarification in writing when they want everyone to follow a procedure or rule and they often do.

Peace

About 15 years ago a family friend tried showing me Amway, and he brought his grandkids to the lunch. His grandson was so excited, at one time he just burst out with "Show them the circles, Grandpa."

That's what I think of whenever this discussion surfaces.