There was a call tonight during the first half of the Miami v. Virginia mens game which resulted in one official calling a block and the other a charge. I felt that the crew handled it properly in that they got together and discussed the play. What made this situation more interesting is that the player made the shot on the call. After the officials talked about the situation, they decided to call a double foul and go to the possesion arrow. Wave off the basket by UVA and Miami got the ball on the arrow. Good job of taking time and discussing the play, getting the call correct, and explaining to both benches after the call was officially reported. This is a perfect situation to discuss in pregame.

Yeah nice handling, but how in the world is it possible that a block AND a charge occur at the same time?! I have a problem with the double foul call. Should I?

It happens.

I went to a camp this past summer where one of the evaluators did an Iowa-Wisconsin game last year where he was part of a blarge. His message to us, which you should always do anyways, is signal a foul, but DO NOT signal the type of foul. You know how guys on TV don't put the fist up sometimes, but just go with block, charge, PC, whatever. You put your fist up first and pause, there's no problem.

In NFHS, wouldn't the basket count since the double foul is not a player control foul?

Actually, it's quite possible to have a combination player control and defensive foul. Besides that, the NCAA has, I believe, ruled that when officials come out like with both signals, they have to go with a double foul.

No, you shouldn't. By rule, it's a double foul.

Yes, you're correct.

BLARGES!! Oh how I have an intense dislike of them. The NFHS and NCAA Men's rules require the officials to handle it as a double personal foul. NCAA Women's rules require the official who has primary to take the call.

NCAA Women's does it the correct way. Why? Because by rule a BLARGE is impossible. Either the defender has obtained/established a legal guarding position or he has not.

Last night, midway through the fourth quarter of girls' H.S. game (two-person crew), I was Trail, opposite the table. A1 was dribbling the ball on the strong side of the court just over the division line in her front court. B1 obtains a legal guarding position against A1 about ten feet from her. B1 is standing about three or four feet above the top of the key extended on the weak side of the court. A1 charges into B1 and we have a double whistle. My partner started to signal a block but I took the call away from him because the ball was in my primary, not to mention I was wondering what the heck he was doing looking at the ball way out in the mid-court area (now there is a term only an old geezer like me would use).

After the game, my partner told me that he was not sure if the ball was in his primary but he had a better angle than me at the play. He was straight lined and I was at right angles to the players. I told him that the play was in my primary and that I had the perfect angle for the play and that it was a charge all the way. He did not argue about the play but he thought that a double foul we could have got away with a double foul.

MTD, Sr.

By rule a blarge is NOT impossible. I'll agree that in practice the woman's method seems cleaner, someone's gotta give up their call. But in theory it is certainly possible that both officials saw something the other one didn't, calling fouls is judgement. And by rule no official has the right to over rule another official's judgement.

And since I don't work ncaa w rules I'll bite the bullet and go with the double foul on these.

Dan:

If B1 has obtained/established a legal guarding position against A1, and has maintained that position when A1 makes contact with B1 in B1 chest, you cannot have a block, you have to have a charge. If B1 does not have a legal guarding position then B1 is blocking.

You cannot have a BLARGE. Either it is a block or a charge, you cannot have both. That fact that we have casebook plays and approved rulings telling us that we should call a double foul is absolute nonsense. Just read the definition for guarding.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, none of that means that two officials won't make a call on the same play and have two different opinions. It's not always as black and white on the floor as it is when you write it.

BBR:

Sure it is as simple as black and white. You just cannot have a block and charge involving the same two players. The rules do not allow it. One official is correct and the other official is incorrect.

MTD, Sr.

So it is impossible for B1 to step into A1 with lower body contact at the exact moment that A1 extends their hand or forearm to push off B1, and for that to happen when one official sees B1 commit a block and another sees A1 commit a player control foul?

Both players caused illegal contact, per the rules, at approximately the same time.

Just wondering....

Under NCAA rules, if we call a double foul, would we not award the ball back to the team in control (instead of going to the arrow)?

No POI.
 

You are correct. You also do not reset the shot clock as well.

Peace

You just cannot have a block and charge involving the same two players. The rules do not allow it.
[/B][/QUOTE]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!

Yes, the rules do allow for it. Otherwise, the case play that states this is a double foul wouldn't exist. Now, you may not like it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We play by NFHS rules, not DeNucci rules. As long as we do, this is a double foul.

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][/QUOTE]

;) 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.

;)

;) 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]

This has been our basketball history moment with your host, Hal Holbrook. Join us next time as we journey to the core of the first block/charge ever called. We will have a round table discussion with Bobby Knight,Ted Valentine, and Billy Packer.

Normally, yes, but in this case, the try was already in the air so there was no team control. Count the basket and go to the arrow.

;) 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]Why the smiley, Bob? You're probably right! :D

Lah me. :D

Mark, is there an opening for a basketball play-by-play announcer somewhere in Ohio?

Sure sounds like you're auditioning for it.

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][/QUOTE]



I know what the Casebook says, and this is an example where the person(s) that came up with that ruling were not wearing their thinking caps. By rule, there cannot be a BLARGE. It is impossible because the defender either had a LGP or he didn't. Maybe it is time for someone to bring it to the Rules Committee's attention.

MTD, Sr.

I know what the Casebook says, and this is an example where the person(s) that came up with that ruling were not wearing their thinking caps. By rule, there cannot be a BLARGE. It is impossible because the defender either had a LGP or he didn't. Maybe it is time for someone to bring it to the Rules Committee's attention.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mark,

A1 is dribbling with B1 attempting to get LGP but does not get there. The only contact is A1's forearm pushing B1, by what you JUST SAID, all we could call was a block on B1 because they did not have LGP.

You can have two players committing illegal contact against each other, and two different officials both seeing half of it.

WOW, about MTD being right and the casebook being wrong. These would be the same ones you held up as correct, when they blatantly mis-applied a rule, in the officials' error/timer's error thread. I guess their word is only golden when it agrees with you.;)

By rule, there cannot be a BLARGE.

[/B][/QUOTE]Case book play 4.19.7SitC says that by rule there sureashell can be a BLARGE.

What color is the sky in your world, Mark? :D

Lah me!

I agree with Mark, in a sense....shoot me now.

You can not have a block and a charge at the same time. Torso-to-torso contact is the same contact...it can only be one thing. The casebook play is to cover the situation when two officials disagree about which it is.

However, you can have a player control foul (not a charge) and a block, hold, hit, etc. at the same time.
<LI>A1 hooks B1 at the same time as B1 smack A1 in the face.
<LI>A1 runs into B1's extended knee as A1 stiffarms B1 in the shoulder.

Remember that double fouls occur at "approximately" the same time, not exactly the same time.

Read 4-7-2 again:

Charging is illegal personal contact caused by PUSHING or moving into an opponent's torso.

It does not say torso to torso contact, a chicken wing clear out IS A CHARGE by definition.

A chicken wing clearout is illegal use of hands/arms, holding, or a push, not a charge....all still a player control foul though. A charge is pushing [with the body] into the opponents torso...otherwise, it's just a push.

If the contact is with some part of the dribbler other than his body, a block is not a relevant option. How can you block the dribblers arm? You can hold it or hit it but you can't block it.

If I ever see anyone block the dribbler's soul, I've got a far different problem to deal with ;)

Couldn't help myself, Camron. Did you mean to say "other than his torso" instead of "other than his body" in your statement? I think you could call a block if the contact was on the dribbler's legs. Am I just misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

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.;)

RIght on!
 

Chuck, I agree 100%...but the original post said the officials waved off the basket! Does anyone know if the really did wave off the basket? Because it should have counted!

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?

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.

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 . . .

Nope, that's completely wrong. The <b>rules makers-i.e. the NFHS Rules Committee</b>- made a <B>RULE</b> tells us how they want us to handle the blarges <b>if</b> one is called. All the interpreters are doing is following the <b>rules</b> 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.

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 <font color = red>by rule</font> a blarge is impossible.
2)You just cannot have a block and a charge involving the same two players, <font color = red>the rules do not allow it</font>.

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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?

;) 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.

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.

It should also be remembered, that a Casebook Play or Approved Ruling is <font color = red>not a rule</font> 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 <b>THIS RULES BOOK</b>, 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 <b>RULES</b> 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:- "<b>THESE RULES</b> 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 <b>RULES BOOK</b> 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 <b>RULES BOOK</b> 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: -<b>"The interpretations and rulings for all play situations have been approved by the rules committe and are OFFICIAL"</b>

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

Lah me!



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

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.;)

(1) Finally. Blarges live!!

(2) I kinda disagree with that too. It is not a bad interpretation per se; I think it's a <b>needed</b> interpretation. It's needed because the reality is that blarges do occur, whether we think that they should never happen or not. And when the blarges do come up, we need rules to handle them.

JR:

Are telling me that the way the NFHS and NCAA Men's handles this situation is better than the way the NCAA Women's handle it?

MTD, Sr.

JR:

Are telling me that the way the NFHS and NCAA Men's handles this situation is better than the way the NCAA Women's handle it?

[/B][/QUOTE]No, Mark, all I'm telling you is what I've been trying to tell you all along. The rules we use in high school allow for blarges and they also tell us how to handle them. End of story. Whether I personally like the rule or not isn't and never was relevant. I respect your right to have a strong opinion about whether the "blarge" rule is a good rule or not. However, to try and intimate that there wasn't a rule related to blarges or that blarges didn't exist, by rule, was wrong.

No, Mark, all I'm telling you is what I've been trying to tell you all along. The rules we use in high school allow for blarges and they also tell us how to handle them. End of story. Whether I personally like the rule or not isn't and never was relevant. I respect your right to have a strong opinion about whether the "blarge" rule is a good rule or not. However, to try and intimate that there wasn't a rule related to blarges or that blarges didn't exist, by rule, was wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]



JR:

Camron and I have both told you that we recognize the fact that the NFHS and NCAA Men's has an official position on how to handle a BLARGE. So stop saying that I do not recoginze that their rules interpretation does not exsist. I am stating that the interpretation cannot be supported by rule. Go back and read my post of Jan. 14/10:57pm, 2005, on page 3 of this thread. That post describes what is wrong with the interpretation.

I guess the real questions are: In a game being played under NFHS or NCAA Men's rules, have you ever had a BLARGE? How did you handle it? Do you pregame how to handle a BLARGE?

MTD, Sr.

Camron and I have both told you that we recognize the fact that the NFHS and NCAA Men's has an official position on how to handle a BLARGE. <font color = red>So stop saying that I do not recoginze that their rules interpretation does not exsist</font>. I am stating that the interpretation cannot be supported by rule.

[/B][/QUOTE]Direct quotes from MTD Sr. in this thread:

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

Your own words prove you wrong, Mark, not me.

Lah me.

Direct quotes from MTD Sr. in this thread:

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

Your own words prove you wrong, Mark, not me.

Lah me. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR, why are we always wasting our time doing this? We have both proved him wrong countless times, only to have him go off with the read this and that's not what I said nonsense.

His next move will be a 2,000 word post with 6 different plays, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the rules that cover this situation.

Because you're both more stubborn than me. I got out of this one several pages ago! :p

Yeah, you think that I mighta learned by now. Who sez you can equate age with wisdom? That's obviously untrue in my case.

JR:

You still haven't answered my questions: In a game being played under NFHS or NCAA Men's rules, have you ever had a BLARGE? How did you handle it? Do you pregame how to handle a BLARGE?

I told you that I teach my student officials what the rules and casebook plays are and that if one gets in that situation to use the rules and casebook situations. But we know that there are plays that are covered in the casebook are situations that with a good pregame conference can be eliminated. BLARGES and simultaneous common fouls are situations that can be handled with a good pregame conference. I know how I would and have handled BLARGES. Please tell me how you handle BLARGES.

MTD, Sr.

1) Yes.
2) By the applicable <b>rule</b>.
3) Yes.

JR:

What do you discuss in your pregame about how to handle a BLARGE?

MTD, Sr.