Last night in a regional final, we had a block/charge. We had a three man crew, two of which had worked all year together and one was from another part of the state. We all got together after the call and discussed what we were going to do. We had discussed in pre game what was to happen: double foul, go to possesion arrow. We got together, talked about it and went with the double foul, bucket counts, and go to possesion arrow. We told both coaches what we had and what the rule was. They were fine with the decision. I know MTD would probably disagree based on his previous posts pertaining to this topic. I was at fault because in pre game we talked about coverage areas and who follow who on a drive to the bucket. I was Lead table side and felt Center had not gotten back down court quick enough to cover the play--it was semi-fastbreak. Live and learn I guess. We never decided what it actually was, though?

And me too! :D Nasty call, but by rule you got it right. Just like MTD, I don't agree with the case book. But you've nailed it: Live and learn!

[Edited by tjones1 on Feb 27th, 2005 at 04:54 PM]

The threads by MTD you refer must've been written before I became aware of this forum.

However, from the original post here, can you please enlighten me as to how a blarge could possibly be considered as a double foul.

Thanks

THe rule is 5.3C in the case book I believe. It is written as a scapegoat for this officiating blunder. Instead of deciding on who is correct, this moves the blame to both instead of one.

4.19.7 Situation C: in the Case book

geeeeeeesh

I've NEVER seen this ruling used on the floor. One of the officials has always relinquished the play to a partner and taken the heat for doing so (from the coach that is losing the call), lol.

Now, I'm assuming MTD's previous posts on this topic might contain something similar to this ruling being a direct contradiction of the rule had there not been a blarge called?

I mean, how can this basket be good, when, if one official would not have called a blocking foul, the basket would not have counted???

Wish I would've been here when the previous threads on this topic were discussed

Goal is awarded because the double foul call is not a player control, thus the bucket counts.

Neither official has the priority over the other...if both have signaled, you can't take either one back since they're just differing judgements on the same act. Since they are fouls by two opponents against each other at the same time, it becomes a double foul. Since it is no longer a PC foul, the bucket can count if it goes. No FTs. Go the arrow.

Slip-sliding away, the language
 

"three man crew, two of which"

Humor me. " . . . two of whom . . . "

MTD's previous point is that the act it self can not both be a charge and a block. One of the officials is actually wrong. The case play is the way to resolve this occassional conflict.

If the one who called PC hadn't called a foul, the bucket would count and the shooter would go to the line. Either direction and someone gets the short end of the stick.

The double is a reasonable comprimise.

That's tough but I you did the right thing by going by the book.

To everybody reading this thread:

Camron has done a very good job of explaining my position on blarges. And RollTide is correct in stating my position that if a defender either has a legal guarding position or he doesn't have a legal guarding position.

My complaint about NFHS Casebook Play 4.19.7, Sit. C really is based not upon the definition of a double personal foul, but upon NFHS R2-S6 (Officials' Authority), which states that: "No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s) within the limits of their respective outlined duties."

Blarges can be eliminated with the following: 1) Have a good pregame; 2) Officiate your primary; and 3) Trust your partner(s).

MTD, Sr.

Re: Slip-sliding away, the language
 

Who cares...

Re: Re: Slip-sliding away, the language
 

Or is it "whom" cares? :D

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

Now that's just ugly grammar. :D

Re: Re: Slip-sliding away, the language
 

Mr. Grammar Guy cares, wherever he may be . . . :)