Block/Charge Call in Miami v. Virginia

[OFISHE8]

I was listening to the radio broadcast and they said they did not count the bucket. I tried to look at the play by play on espn.com but I could not get it to pull back up. Is it the same in NF as NCAA that the bucket shall count?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Where does it say that this push cannot be with the arm, shoulder, top of the head, or rear end? The definition says pushing or moving into an opponents torso. You are reading into it only what you want.

You're right, it doesn't explicity say that. But, if A1 has his arm extended into B1's torso, how could you argue the other side that it could also be a block.

If it's body to body, it's either a block (no LGP) or a charge (LGP).

If it's not body to body, it can't be both.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

You're right, it doesn't explicity say that. But, if A1 has his arm extended into B1's torso, how could you argue the other side that it could also be a block.

If it's body to body, it's either a block (no LGP) or a charge (LGP).

If it's not body to body, it can't be both.

Then no double foul could ever be called.

Remember that both players can illegally contact the other per rule. The rules also state that if one official has a block and the other a charge it is a double foul.

The only real difference is it is unlikely that one official will call a double foul on a block/charge.

[hawkk]

gee whiz Mark is getting beat up on here. His point seems awfully simple and -- gasp -- common-sensical: interpreters have decided to MANDATE a call that is impossible to be the RIGHT call in an objective sense -- i.e. an all-knowing, all-seeing ref would NEVER call a blarge. It's nothing more than a concession that someone missed the call and a refusal to permit (or require) one official to defer to another. (Yeah, we can all concoct situations where there could be a PC and a block at the same time, but that doesn't make the issue go away -- the real issue, the common issue, is the simultaneous block call where the two officials disagree if the defender got there in time.)

What a silly discussion, and why am I responding . . .

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by hawkk
gee whiz Mark is getting beat up on here. His point seems awfully simple and -- gasp -- common-sensical: interpreters have decided to MANDATE a call that is impossible to be the RIGHT call in an objective sense -- i.e. an all-knowing, all-seeing ref would NEVER call a blarge.

Nope, that's completely wrong. The rules makers-i.e. the NFHS Rules Committee- made a RULE tells us how they want us to handle the blarges if one is called. All the interpreters are doing is following the rules explicitly. There is absolutely no other way that that particular rule could possibly be interpreted. That's common sense.

What MTD said is not only completely wrong according to the rules, but it's about as nonsensical as you could possibly get imo. He trying to tell us that a rule that is in the book really isn't in the book.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, that's completely wrong. The rules makers-i.e. the NFHS Rules Committee- made a RULE tells us how they want us to handle the blarges if one is called. All the interpreters are doing is following the rules explicitly. There is absolutely no other way that that particular rule could possibly be interpreted. That's common sense.

What MTD said is not only completely wrong according to the rules, but it's about as nonsensical as you could possibly get imo. He trying to tell us that a rule that is in the book really isn't in the book.

Not at all. MTD is not saying that rule is not in the book. He's saying that rule is there, just as you say, to get us out of a predicament when two officials call opposite calls. If it is block vs. charge, one is wrong...but which one. Its a double foul by declaration due to the equality of the officials in authority of calling fouls...not because both players actually fouled.

Said again, if you have torso to torso contact and one official calls a block while another calls a charge, it can't truly be both...but is declared so by rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]

MTD is not saying that rule is not in the book.

[/B][/QUOTE]Oh, is that right, Camron? Then please tell me which person made the following statements previously in this thread:

1)Because by rule a blarge is impossible.
2)You just cannot have a block and a charge involving the same two players, the rules do not allow it.

Un-freaking-believable imo! The rules very, very specifically do allow for blarges, and they also very,very specifically allow for a block and a charge involving the same two players. To state otherwise when there's a definitive case book play saying that you are wrong is ludicrous.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 14th, 2005 at 08:20 PM]

[OFISHE8]

Answer this question: Why does Trail call a block and Lead calls a charge on the play? Should they have called a double foul at the same time? No. They made a call based on their judgement. Period. We have a casebook play to eliminate a crew's error.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

MTD is not saying that rule is not in the book.

[/B]

Oh, is that right, Camron? Then please tell me which person made the following statements previously in this thread:

1)Because by rule a blarge is impossible.
2)You just cannot have a block and a charge involving the same two players, the rules do not allow it.

Un-freaking-believable imo! The rules very, very specifically do allow for blarges, and they also very,very specifically allow for a block and a charge involving the same two players. To state otherwise when there's a definitive case book play saying that you are wrong is ludicrous.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 14th, 2005 at 08:20 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]



I stand by my original statement, that NFHS and NCAA rules do not allow a BLARGE. The definition of guarding just does not allow such a thing to happen. The reality of the situation is that when a BLARGE happens, it is the result of one of two things and both involve court coverage and mechanics:

1) Two-person crew: This is almost always a breakdown in court coverage: One official abandoning his primary to make a call where he should not be looking and from my experience he will always call block and he will always be wrong because he never sees the play from start to finish.

2) Three-person crew: This is almost always the result of dual coverage. Even in this situation only one of the two officials will be able to see the entire play from start to finish.

The NFHS and NCAA Men’s Rules committees consider a BLARGE a double foul. The NFHS and NCAA Men’s Rules committees have addressed the BLARGE through a Casebook Play (NFHS), and its CCA Manual and in-season rulings (NCAA Men’s). Rather that addressing the problem of court coverage and mechanics the Rules Committees side step this problem with a cosmetic solution.

The NCAA Women’s Rules Committee recognizes that a BLARGE, by rule, is impossible, and is actually the result of court coverage and mechanics. The NCAA Women’s Rules Committee has addressed this problem from the point of view of court coverage and mechanics in its CCA Manual and in-season rulings.

And from what Camron has already written in this thread, without putting words in his mouth, I think that he would agree with what I have just written.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

I stand by my original statement, that NFHS and NCAA rules do not allow a BLARGE.

[/B][/QUOTE]How about this then, Mark? Post your address and I'll send you a case book to read. You can even keep it when you're done reading NFHS 4.19.7SitC. You might find that casebooks are real handy things to have around. There's some really amazing things in there--like rules.

Deal?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

The rules do not allow it?

Lah me, Mark, you've come up with some real dandies over the years, but this one tops them all.

NFHS Rule 4-19-7 and NFHS Case book play 4.19.7SitC

'Nuff said!

And the sad part is that you are very aware of those plainly written rules!

Lah me! [/B]

Predicted MTD response:

Naismith's original rule 5 states, "No shouldering, holding, pushing, striking or tripping in any way of an opponent. The first infringement of this rule by any person shall count as a foul; the second shall disqualify him until the next goal is made or, if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game."

During the second game played under this rule a dispute arose when two players each claimed that the other had fouled. Naismith charged only one player with the foul and scribbled an amendment to rule 5 on the copy of the rules posted on the gym wall.

I discovered this amendment stored in a mayonaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's porch. I now have that jar in my attic.

The fact that the FED has chosen to produce a case in opposition to that rule only proves that they have not seen Naismith's handwritten note and does not mean that the amendment should be superceded. Had the FED intended to supercede the amendment, it would have been stated specifically when the case was written.



[/B][/QUOTE]


Bob:

You either a psyhic or psychotic, but it was a brilliant respones.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I stand by my original statement, that NFHS and NCAA rules do not allow a BLARGE.

[/B]

How about this then, Mark? Post your address and I'll send you a case book to read. You can even keep it when you're done reading NFHS 4.19.7SitC. You might find that casebooks are real handy things to have around. There's some really amazing things in there--like rules.

Deal? [/B][/QUOTE]



I have the NFHS Casebook Play right in front of me. I know exactly what it says, and it is a copout ruling. I pregame with my partners exactly how we are going to handle this play if it happens in our game, furthermore I strees in my pregames, to officiate your primary and trust your partner. Just because the Casebook Play says it is a double foul, is no reason for the out-of-primary official not to give up the play and let the in-primary official take the call.

OFISE8 in his post of Jan. 14/10:48pm, 2005, made a very astute observation, and I quote: "Why does Trail call a block and Lead calls a charge on the play?" Acutally, it as been my observation that it is the Lead that calls the block and the Trail that calls the charge. Why? Lets look at this situation in a two-person crew: Because in these plays, the L is straight-lined and more often than not is calling out of his primarly, while the T is at a right angle, more or less, to the play and can better officiate the defense, which is the key to officiating the block/charge play. That is why it is important for the primary official to take the call.

It should also be remembered, that a Casebook Play or Approved Ruling is not a rule but an interpretation of a rule.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

It should also be remembered, that a Casebook Play or Approved Ruling is not a rule but an interpretation of a rule.

[/B][/QUOTE]Lah me!

1)Found on page 1 of every case book ever issued in the history of mankind:- "Except as may be specifically noted in THIS RULES BOOK, The NFHS makes no recommendation about the nature or extent of the modifications that may be appropriate for children who are younger or less skilled than high school varsity athletes".

2)Also found on page 1 of every case book ever issued in the history of mankind:- "Every individual using these RULES is responsible for prudent judgement with respect to each contest, athlete and facility, and each athlete is responsible for for exercising caution and good sportsmanship".

3) Also found on page 1 of every case book ever issued in the history of mankind:- "THESE RULES should be interpreted and applied so as to make reasonable accomodations for disabled athletes."

4) Found on page 1 of every case book ever issued in the history of mankind:- This RULES BOOK has been copyrighted by the National Federation of State High School Associations with the United States Copyright Office".

5) Also found on page 1 of every case book issued since the dawn of the internet(similar language was used in the Dark Ages before that also): "Republication of all or any portion of this RULES BOOK on the internet is expressly prohibited".

6) From the "FOREWARD" on page 2 found in every case book ever issued in the history of mankind: -"The interpretations and rulings for all play situations have been approved by the rules committe and are OFFICIAL"

Case book plays aren't rules, Mark? Why is the FED hiding them in rules books then?

Lah me!



[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 15th, 2005 at 12:53 PM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

JR:

What I am saying is that there is a rules book and there is a casebook of plays. Casebook plays tell us how to apply the rules. I will not dispute that the fact that the NFHS and NCAA Men’s Rules Committees have given us a ruling (or interpretation, if you will) telling us how to handle this situation. It is a bad interpretation and I cover the situation in my pre-game conferences so as to avoid such a situation, if it occurs. If the play was to appear on a test I would instruct my student officials to answer the question per the Casebook Play, but I would also teach them how to avoid such situations. Calling BLARGE a double foul does not address the problems that cause such a situation. And I have to give credit to the NCAA Women’s Rules Committee to recognize what the real problem is in this play and come up with a better solution.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
JR:

What I am saying is that there is a rules book and there is a casebook of plays. Casebook plays tell us how to apply the rules. I will not dispute that the fact that the NFHS and NCAA Men’s Rules Committees have given us a ruling (or interpretation, if you will) telling us how to handle this situation. It is a bad interpretation and I cover the situation in my pre-game conferences so as to avoid such a situation, if it occurs. If the play was to appear on a test I would instruct my student officials to answer the question per the Casebook Play, but I would also teach them how to avoid such situations. Calling BLARGE a double foul does not address the problems that cause such a situation. And I have to give credit to the NCAA Women’s Rules Committee to recognize what the real problem is in this play and come up with a better solution.

MTD, Sr.

NCAA women also puts 4 eyes on a match up, during leads rotation, that can lead to more double whistles, and makes a blarge MORE LIKELY to happen.