Blarge Question And NFHS Response

[crosscountry55]

Her answer was curt enough as to indicate that she has probably answered this question more than once recently.

But nice to have this put to bed. If they ever change the procedure to be more like NCAAW, I'd be ok with that, too. I really don't care either way.

Nine years, zero blarges. Knock on wood.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Nine years, zero blarges. Knock on wood.

Thirty-six years for me. Zero blarges.

I've come close a few times, when I don't hear my partner's whistle due to the crowd noise, and I try to sell my call with a great preliminary signal.

[Rich]

I was in the middle of one this year. My second that I can remember since moving to Wisconsin 15 years ago.

I got over it. Both times.

Some good officials, ones better than me, have had blarges.

Just like an inadvertent whistle in football, it's something that shouldn't happen, but does. When it does happen, there needs to be a clear, specific resolution to it. There is.

I still predict that JAR will pin his interpretation on the word "rules" and say that a preliminary signal is different. He would be wrong and everyone else should simply ignore him.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thirty-six years for me. Zero blarges.

I've come close a few times, when I don't hear my partner's whistle due to the crowd noise, and I try to sell my call with a great preliminary signal.

It's easy to not have a blarge in 2-whistle games.

Originally Posted by Rich

I still predict that JAR will pin his interpretation on the word "rules" and say that a preliminary signal is different. He would be wrong and everyone else should simply ignore him.

I recognized this possibility as well right away. Unfortunately Mrs. Wynns did not specifically equate "rules" with "signals" which I believe will not dissuade the debate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I recognized this possibility as well right away. Unfortunately Mrs. Wynns did not specifically equate "rules" with "signals" which I believe will not dissuade the debate.

In the context of her email and the question as posed, I'm not sure there's really any other logical way to read it.

That said, if your state governing authority wants you to do it the NCAAW way, have at it. NFHS is clear.

[sj]

Would this play require anything different in the ruling or approach?

From C’s primary A1 drives along the baseline and he jumps and releases the ball on a try. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. The C signals a charge based on his view that B1 had established legal guarding position. The L, who is still on the other side of the lane, signals a block. His view included B1’s foot being placed on the out of bounds line as B1 attempted to establish legal guarding position and remaining there when contact was made.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by sj

Would this play require anything different in the ruling or approach?

From C’s primary A1 drives along the baseline and he jumps and releases the ball on a try. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. The C signals a charge based on his view that B1 had established legal guarding position. The L, who is still on the other side of the lane, signals a block. His view included B1’s foot which was on the out of bounds line when contact was made.

I think this is different, the double foul is not necessary if one official is able to offer additional information that would invalidate a call by rule. Similar to how NCAA-M can change a call if an official has definite knowledge that a defender is in the RA, and they do not have to go double foul.