Blarge Question And NFHS Response
 

Sooooo, I decided to send the whole case play, etc to Theresia Wynns and this is what I got (maybe the horse is FINALLY dead):

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)


Mrs. Wynns:

I am a NFHS basketball official in Delaware. I am writing in regard to the case play listed above. It is my understanding that recently the NFHS has said that, in the play above, the two officials should get together, discuss the play, and then decide which foul to report. I am confused given the case play which states both fouls must be reported as a double foul.

I understand in a live game situation where both officials signal a foul on this type of play with JUST a fist in the air and no preliminary signal, one official will more likely than not drop and let the other official take the call. That is not my question.

My question is what should happen, by rule, if one official blows the whistle and demonstratively signals a blocking foul (hands to hips) and the other official blows the whistle and demonstratively signals a player control foul (hand to back of head) AT THE SAME TIME at the moment contact occurs?

The case play seems pretty clear that this would be a double foul situation by rule and interpretation and there is no justification for getting together and discussing which foul to report and which foul not to report.

Thank you in advance or your time and consideration

Theresia Wynns via appriver3651010340.onmicrosoft.com

4:00 PM (1 minute ago)
Reply

Walt,

If two officials rule fouls and they are opposite, they must rule double foul, report both fouls, shoot no free throws and put the ball in play at the point of interruption.

Theresia D. Wynns

Director of Sports and Officials

National Federation of State High School Associations

PO Box 690 | Indianapolis, IN 46206

317-972-6900

Mic drop. Exeunt.

Sometimes it depends on how the question is worded.

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.

Different Preliminary Signals ...
 

Great question walt. Everything was laid out in front of her, including the infamous case play, and she responded the only way she could, with the same response as the caseplay.

I like that you included in the question the fact that the two officials gave different preliminary signals.

I wish they'd go to the NCAA-W scenario too but until that happens, now we know.

Hopefully back to more interesting play discussions!

Blarge ...
 

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.

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.

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

Dare I say, Deus Vult?

Well, that settles what the NF appears to think (as if that was not the only evidence of their position).

Maybe a certain poster can move on when this is discussed again (and it will be).

Peace

I was going to suggest Deus Ex Machina, but that might be a bit of a stretch.

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.

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.

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.

I know you know this, but that's an NCAA precedent, based on an NCAA rule (RA). I'd be hesitant to apply it to a rule set that doesn't use the RA rule.

I'd probably go that route, but I'd be hesitant and would reach out to leadership afterwards.

Well, you tell me what her final answer is. My email didn't quote the whole case play, no, but it was in the subject line. So if that swing the tide....
I asked what happens when two officials make opposite calls.
Her answer: Get together and get it right if possible. If not, report both and proceed.

Follow up question: If the two officials give conflicting primary signals, does this change anything?

Her answer: NO

Several who didn't like her previous answer said it meant nothing. So now that you do like her answer, it means.............what?

Her previous answer was wrong. At least she's corrected herself now.

You were purposely deceptive and coy in presenting your question. That's why you got that answer.

My guess is that she got clarification later from folks that were more familiar with the history and rationale of the NFHS rule set. She's probably been inundated with emails since she sent out that incorrect ruling.

Didn't she come from NCAAW?

Yes, she did work at the NCAA I believe. She was also over the Indiana association with the officials as well. So I would have thought she would have known better, but she did have a background with the NCAA and I think that was the problem. And JAR did not ask the right question and that is also why there was confusion (mostly to him) about what there is to do.

Peace

Maybe, but his follow-up question should have cleared it up.

Regardless, she's now giving the answer everyone expected, the way everyone has interpreted the rule in the past. If the NFHS wants it done the same as NCAAW, they need to change the case play.

Apples and Oranges.

Calling it a block due to RA is a different thing than two judging the same contact as a block and a charge. There is no conflict when the RA is the reason for the block.

When you are only looking for a certain answer, you are not going to ask a follow-up question that would clear up the issue in the first place. Heck he could have asked the question the right way from the beginning and he would have not needed a follow-up question at all. She would have known the question clearly and answered accordingly. I have emailed people and been emailed and if you ask the question right, then the issue is clearly covered.

Peace

His question was does that precedent, or concept, apply to the boundary line as well as the RA?

Yes, the previous post had brought the situation for a block charge where the defender's foot is on the line. As Adam previously mentioned, it might not be good to use the same reasoning as the RA play, but I do still think its similar enough to justify making one call over the other.