NFHS Rules Editor Blarge ...
 

For your viewing pleasure, here's the Theresia D. Wynns, NFHS Rules Editor, "blarge" thread that was referenced in the recent Purdue-IU Blarge thread:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post926977

And, here's the infamous casebook play in question:

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 rules a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official rules 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. (4-36)

Wouldn't it be nice if the NFHS Rules Editor read her own casebook?

NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules, using Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings, call this a Double Personal Foul, while NCAA Women's Rules, using the CCA Women's Manual, require the Officials to conference and determine which foul occurred first.

The NCAA Women's Rules do it correctly while the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules do it incorrectly. WHY?

By definition (rule), it is impossible to have a "blarge" with regard to a Block/Charge. Either the Defender has obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA M/W) a LGP or the Defender has not.

MTD, Sr.

I do not think this is about right or wrong. It is what it is for a reason. If you choose, there is going to be complaining of why we decided one or the other. And since this is rare in the first place, the rules have in place a situation that makes it clear that we are not to want to have this call on any occasion. Should it change? Maybe, but it will not solve all the problem. Because if you signal one over the other, there is still going to be a debate over which one is right. Usually in a blarge situation, there is a coach that knows the rule as well and following the rule is hard to argue. But if we choose, the coaches can argue that we picked the wrong one.

Peace

There are going to be arguments no matter what happens in this situation. Saying "per the Rule Book, that's how we have to handle this situation" is not going to stop coaches from complaining. They may not complain that we're not following the rule book, but they will complain that one of the calls was wrong and/or we messed up by signalling both calls. So why not do the logical thing and pick one or the other, seeing as how both calls can not be right?

For the record, a "blarge" has never happened to me, so I have no personal antidotes to add here. But if we're talking about what the ruling should be in this situation, and not simply what the ruling currently is, then the logical answer seems like the best one.

There are valid reasons to go either way, IMO. I happen to like the current method, as it makes things faster when done right. "Coach, by rule...." and get the ball in play. Any complaint from the coach isn't going to be heard at that point. He knows as well as we do that it could have gone either way, most likely.

I don't think either one is more logical than the other.

Except in the case where it couldn't have gone either way. There are times when the official who made the wrong call is the only one in the gym who saw it that way. And then, even the guy who made this wrong call can certainly have second thoughts. To be bound by a signal is, in my opinion, not logical.

Why Not ???
 

Inadvertent signal?

This has been beat to death enough. We're not going to gain any new ground here.