MTD-But doesn't the "Official's Authority" rule require that a blarge be handled as in Situation C? If L comes out with a block, and C comes out with a charge, neither can set aside the other, nor question the other, so both fouls have to be honored, which would require a double foul. Or are you saying that their "respective outlined duties" would include their primary, so the call of the official in whose primary it occured should be the call that is followed?

Your first sentence is the mindset of the NFHS Rules committee and the officials who started this string did the proper procedure as written.

The problem with the ruling is that it assumes such a thing as a blarge can exist, but also ignores some basic definitions and suggested mechanics.

Yes, the official who is primary should be the one to take the call. But somewhere, sometime in the past, 2 referees made opposite calls on the same play and neither would admit he was the one who made a mistake. So, to be politically correct the NFHS has ruled both were right and ignored the "player control" defintion and it's ramifications as to scoring in making a ruling on the play.

They also ignored the fact that by definition a blarge cannot exist because one action cannot simultaneously be two diametrically opposed acts.

It is like the old question. What happens if an irresistible force encounters an immoveable body? The answer is they cannot exist in the same realm or plane or dimension. By definition if an irresistible force exists then it will move anything. If there was a body that could stop the force then it would no longer be irresisible.

Apply the same argument to the definitions of blocking and Player control foul and how to determine based on legal guarding position. If legal guarding position is attained then blocking cannot occur. If no legal guarding position then Player control cannot occur. A blarge assumes that the defense both established and did not establish legal guarding position at the same time.

Besides, considering the "Officials Authority Rule" you mention, NF football rules give the Referee the duty to rule on issues in which 2 officials disagree. Why they cannot extend the same rule to Basketball is beyond my imagination.

1) The problem with the ruling is that it assumes such a thing as a blarge can exist, but also ignores some basic definitions and suggested mechanics.

2) They also ignored the fact that by definition a blarge cannot exist because one action cannot simultaneously be two diametrically opposed acts.

[/B][/QUOTE]Well, that makes sense. In #1, you say a blarge exists. In #2, you say a blarge can't exist. No wonder I walk around in a state of confusion. :D

The NFHS could care less if "one action cannot simultaneously be two diametrically opposed acts". They just want to make sure we have a procedure to follow if two officials make diametrically opposite calls and neither wants to change those calls. In the real world, that happens. Saw it with my own eyes in an NCAA game the other day.

Unfortunately, in the real world- the world which includes the rules and the game being played under those rules- blarges do exist. These little semantic exercises just serve to confuse people imo. The bottom line is.....sh*t happens....and the FED gave us direction on how to deal with the sh*t if and when it does happen.

Yup, in a perfect world, there live no dreaded blarges and we all skip along hand-in-hand merrily wending our way through fields of clover. In the real world, you look up from giving a block signal to see your partner with his hand behind his head.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 28th, 2005 at 06:59 AM]

The dreaded blarge has even made it to the NCAA tourney. In a game several years ago, one official signaled player control, the other signaled a block. I don't know the NCAA rule on this, but at the time, it was handled exactly like how the NF wants it handled.

Under the men's rules both players get charged a foul.

I believe under the woman's rules the officials must decide which of the 2 fouls will be charged, the other is ignored.

While I agree with the gist of your post, it's not entirely accurate...

Lack of LGP does not preclude PC fouls.

Stationary B1, facing basket. A1 dribbles down lane, crashes in to B1. No LGP but can still be a PC foul.

B1 actively guarding A1 but, for what ever reason, does not have LGP. A1 straight-arms B1 in the face. No LGP but still a PC foul.

"Stationary B1, facing basket. A1 dribbles down lane, crashes in to B1. No LGP but can still be a PC foul."

This is a particularly well made point. This happens frequently, and officials aren't prepared to deal with it.

Re: Re: Slip-sliding away, the language
 

Brave, but foolhardy. Signals are a big component of comprehensibility. Strip them out and the noise in the channel goes up. Eventually (if not already) you can't think.

I don't understand how you can have a block and a charge on the same play with the result being a double foul being called. Whether I'm doing two man or three man during the pregame we agree to yield to whoever is primary, however if it's my primary and we have different calls if my partner comes in strong I'll yield to my partner and let him/her live and die with the call. To me whoever was primary should have taken that call. In this case a double foul just looks bad.

Is this your first "Blarge"? Being in a regional final it would appear that you woulddn't be calling in someone else's area. Do you do this often? You must stay focused.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!! A convert has joined the fray.

MTD, Sr.

Daryl:

Shame on you. You should know better because I have babbled on about that play at least a thousands times between Toledo and Hartford for years on end.

MTD, Sr.

Cameron;

I agree with you. My statement applied only to the "blarge" situation I had in mind yet I failed to define it more clearly in my previous post. It wasn't intended as a blanket statement for all situations so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

And JR is right about the real world and how NF has ruled what officials should do when the blarge happens.

As a student of the rules it is my duty to give the NF feedback on their rules interpretations and in fact NF encourages it. I only was stating IMO that the rules committee dropped the ball on this one and gave some reasons why.

But the bottom line is that those of us who are officiating under NFHS rules are bound to enforce the rules as written without prejudice. While I may disagree with NF on some issues I am not at liberty to disreguard their rule and administer the game using my own opinion.

Re: Re: Re: Slip-sliding away, the language
 

You tell us.....where are you?