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 . . . :)

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?

Just looked in my rule and case book can't find blarge.

Just looked in my rule and case book can't find blarge. [/B][/QUOTE]Case book play 4.19.7SitC

This comment always comes up and my response is always this:

Don't the lines denoting primary coverage MEET somewhere on the court? Hell, last week I had a TRIPLE whistle on a shooting foul -- if you looked at the spot on the court, it's where the three primaries come together.

It's not calling in someone else's area that's necessarily the problem, it's two officials not looking for the double whistle situation and just being quick and making two opposite calls.

That is exactly what I did. I felt that Center opposite table had yet to get into a position to make the call. Thus, I came with the call from Lead table side on a semi fast break and from my angle had a charge. He came strong because of our pregame and the discussion we had on coverage areas and drives to the bucket. He saw block and I saw charge. We got together and took our time and made the rulebook "ruling". Do I agree with the rulebook? On some things I do, but we cannot disregard the rulebook in cases like this. It is similar to the situation on a previous post about the Timer starting the clock on an inbounds play when the official mistakenly chops the clock on a pass along the baseline to another teammate out of bounds. Similar situation

Either you as Lead or the Center was wrong. One of you should have backed off. With a double foul you both were wrong.

You say both coaches were fine with it. So my guess is the possession arrow was pointing to the team that was defending on the play. Because if the possession arrow was pointing to the offensive team, they get the score and the ball. Now, if I was the other coach I would be a bit upset on a play where one of the officials had it PC, which means bucket doesn't count and I get ball. What do you think?

But which one? ;)

Pregame does't mean anything once they both signaled.

Both made a call based on their angle and opinion. The play was in transition so the areas were shifting down the court. The entire play is the leads on a fast break no matter who's ultimate "primary" it was in. It only becomes a primary once the official is in position to cover it.

Once the both signaled, who could back off? Either way and one coach could have a very valid complaint that could eventually blow up.

Double foul is the clean and right solution once conflicting signals have been given.

Why not hold up on signal if you can? Put up raised fist but come together to discuss. That way it does not look like either one of you are backing off, even though you may decide to do that. If you are both adamant about the call, then go with the blarge.

I disagree. With a double whistle what's the rush in signaling what the type of foul is being called. Fist in the air is what should have been done. Proper mechanic is to get together to discuss. I suspect no indication of of the type of foul was given. Sounds to me that this is a case of not trusting your partner. Note in the original post it was two guys who work togehter frequently with another official from out of state. I suspect the Center was the outsider. Easy explanation to the Coach we agreed in our pregame if this happened it would be Primary's call. Do I expect the Coach to be happy? Probably not.

The crew may have done a great job overall but in my opionion this particular play was handled poorly.

Sounds to me that this is a case of not trusting your partner. [/B][/QUOTE]It's usually a case of both officials trusting <b>themselves</b>. Both think that they got the call right. It ain't a big deal. Just go with the double foul and get the ball back into play asap. You can analyze it from here to next year, but sh*t happens--and to the best of us too.

It's usually a case of both officials trusting <b>themselves</b>. Both think that they got the call right. It ain't a big deal. Just go with the double foul and get the ball back into play asap. You can analyze it from here to next year, but sh*t happens--and to the best of us too. [/B][/QUOTE]

Can't have a block and a charge on the same play. One is obviously wrong. Best way to handle is to give it to the primary. In this case it seems to be the leads call. Personally if I was one of the officials on this and my partner wanted the call that badly I'd give it to him/her and let him/her live or die with the call.

Can't have a block and a charge on the same play. One is obviously wrong. Best way to handle is to give it to the primary. In this case it seems to be the leads call. Personally if I was one of the officials on this and my partner wanted the call that badly I'd give it to him/her and let him/her live or die with the call. [/B][/QUOTE]
Here we go again...

I must say I agree that it's practically impossible to have a block and a charge on the same contact. But if the book says to call a double foul, then just do it. Period.

Can't have a block and a charge on the same play. One is obviously wrong. Best way to handle is to give it to the primary. In this case it seems to be the leads call. Personally if I was one of the officials on this and my partner wanted the call that badly I'd give it to him/her and let him/her live or die with the call. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why is there a specific case play for this then?

Why is there a specific case play for this then? [/B][/QUOTE]

It's to handle the situation where two Ref's use poor mechanics when a double whistle occurs and neither one wants to back off. It's a way to cover your a**.

Why is there a specific case play for this then? [/B][/QUOTE]

It's to handle the situation where two Ref's use poor mechanics when a double whistle occurs and neither one wants to back off. It's a way to cover your a**. [/B][/QUOTE]Congratulations, Gordon. I've seen NCAA officials who have worked Final Fours be involved in blarges. I've seen it happen to officials that were regarded as some of the all-time greats of our avocation. It's nice to know that there's one official in the country that it would never happen to. Yup, gordon30307. Maybe you could offer your services to the NCAA. You know, go around to all of the conferences and teach their officiating staffs how to avoid blarges.

That is the ideal...but the situation being discussed is when they've both already signaled...for whatever reason. If neither or just one has signaled, there is no issue.

As I also replied to Travelin...your suggestion is ideal but the point of the discussion is that they've both already signaled...for whatever reason. You can't take back the signals without potentially creating problems.

It's to handle the situation where two Ref's use poor mechanics when a double whistle occurs and neither one wants to back off. It's a way to cover your a**. [/B][/QUOTE]Congratulations, Gordon. I've seen NCAA officials who have worked Final Fours be involved in blarges. I've seen it happen to officials that were regarded as some of the all-time greats of our avocation. It's nice to know that there's one official in the country that it would never happen to. Yup, gordon30307. Maybe you could offer your services to the NCAA. You know, go around to all of the conferences and teach their officiating staffs how to avoid blarges. [/B][/QUOTE]

The three things that Gordon isn't mentioning are:

(1) Primaries do meet up at certain places on the floor
(2) SOME block/charge decisions are close enough so that different angles may have different views of the play
(3) Officials are human

I have no problem with calling the AP as per the case book. However, I don't think one necessarily needs to stick with the AP if one of the officials is able to add additional information that can bring the crew to a consensus.

Hell, I pointed the wrong way on an out of bounds call last night because I missed a tip on the far side of the court. The trail helped me out and gave me additional information. Nothing FORCED me to keep my original call in this situation.

I have no problem with calling the AP as per the case book. However, I don't think one necessarily needs to stick with the AP if one of the officials is able to add additional information that can bring the crew to a consensus.

[/B][/QUOTE]Exactly. The case play tells us what to do when we can't agree on who got it right. Iow, it goes hand-in-hand with #3- us being human. Hey, I gotta admit that I've been involved in blarges before. Never ever came out of one feeling that I've failed as an official though, just because I happened to be involved in one. Never, ever jumped on my partner either for seeing the play differently than I did. We talk about it after the game. If we can get film, it's a good play to review also. I ain't smart enough to ensure that one will never happen to me again though.

Congratulations, Gordon. I've seen NCAA officials who have worked Final Fours be involved in blarges. I've seen it happen to officials that were regarded as some of the all-time greats of our avocation. It's nice to know that there's one official in the country that it would never happen to. Yup, gordon30307. Maybe you could offer your services to the NCAA. You know, go around to all of the conferences and teach their officiating staffs how to avoid blarges. [/B][/QUOTE]

The three things that Gordon isn't mentioning are:

(1) Primaries do meet up at certain places on the floor
(2) SOME block/charge decisions are close enough so that different angles may have different views of the play
(3) Officials are human

I have no problem with calling the AP as per the case book. However, I don't think one necessarily needs to stick with the AP if one of the officials is able to add additional information that can bring the crew to a consensus.

Hell, I pointed the wrong way on an out of bounds call last night because I missed a tip on the far side of the court. The trail helped me out and gave me additional information. Nothing FORCED me to keep my original call in this situation. [/B][/QUOTE]

It's quite simply impossible to have a block and a charge. One of the officials is wrong. How you resolve this is a completely different issue. Going the double foul route is the wishy washee, beuracratic, kissing your sister, unable, to make a decision way to resolve this. If you're comfortable with that.... Hey whatever floats your boat.

Jr and Rich,

I would like to add to the primaries becoming blurred and tape that y'all talked about. When we have asked officials about these types of plays they can't agree upon WHERE the play started or the collision OCCURRED. They are flabbergasted when they see the play on tape. One, or both can be as far as 15 feet off in their guestimations. I think people do know their primaries, but instead of these plays being drawn up on a chalkboard, they happen at warp speed with focus on where defensive players are coming from and did the defensive player get there in time. The wonder is not that blarges occur, but that they don't occur more often than reported.

I'd also like to point out that most of the time these guys are very good officials.

Well, you're right that it can't be both. But as I said before, which one is wrong? The NFHS is a very clear case says neither...both calls stand.

And....how do you plan on resolving it, Gordon, if you call a charge and your partner calls a block...and your partner declines to change his call even though you tell him that, of course, <b>you</b> are <b>right</b>? I know that you've said that a blarge could never,ever in a gazillion years possibly occur when <b>you're</b> officiating, but humor me. You're already on record as saying that you won't change your call because to do so would be a "wishy-washy,bureaucratic,kissing your sister, unable to make a decision way to resolve this". Do you and your partner just stand there looking at each other while the players grow old and die, the earth cools and the solar system implodes? What's your solution?

1) innie, minnie, miney, moe

2) flip a coin (probably will be seen by others though)

3) <s>draw straws</s> ... peaknuckle

4) if you're in a 3 man crew, get the official that isn't involved in the blarge to guess a # between 1 and 10 (and tell both captains what the # is for validation).. which ever official is the closest without going over, we go with his/her call

[Edited by RollTide on Mar 2nd, 2005 at 03:58 PM]

My personal favorite would have to be rock, paper scissors. Although I think that a fight to the death at center court, with all of the players circled round, between the officials in question would be much more entertaining that going to the possession arrow.

Maybe, but the spectators didn't pay to see us. :)

Good point.

Let the 2 players fight to the death, loser gets the foul.

Hey reading is a skill. Wishy-washy etal. is the double foul route. When I have a double whistle my fist goes up (no signal in this case) I find out what my partner has and if we differ we go to primary. If it's my primary and he/she still wants it (assuming we differ) I'll let him/her live or die with the call. If my partner (I trust my partner) feels that strongly perhaps my partner is right and I'm wrong.

But does it have to be the two players involved? Or can the captains pick a fighter?

I think you guys should stop now... We got the point. :rolleyes:

Good question. We have to do *something* until MTD publishes the proper procedure, so I would go with the 2 players involved, unless 1 of them was injured in the collision and the coach can name a replacement to take his place.

All of those are dumb.

Flip a cheerleader.

do you guarantee you will catch the cheerleader JR, or will you too busy trying to see ..... lol

You're still missing the point...We all agree that if no signals have been given you talk about it and make one call. But both have signaled in this case. What do you do now?

How can this happen? Consider if the play happened when both the defender and the dribbler had one foot in the lead's primary and one foot in the trail's primary and are moving in a direction parallel to the boundary of the primaries. Who's primary is it in? Both officials saw it as their primary.

If this happened to me and I foolishly signaled with a double whistle and my partnered really wanted the call I would give it to him/her. My explanation to the unhappy Coach. Coach in our pregame we agreed whoever the play was going to would take the call. Coach it's impossible to have a block and charge on the same play I'm sure you agree. He would say yes and we would play on. Hey this is my hyopothetical play and I can end it this way if I like........

It has been my observation over the years (34 years to be exact) that "blarges' occur very rarely in a three-person officating crew, but are quite common in a two-person officating crew. It is also my observation over the years, that when a "blarge" occurs in a game with a two-person officiating crew, the official who is calling a blocking foul is almost always calling out of his primary, did not see the entire play, was not officiating the defense, and is always wrong.

MTD, Sr.

If this happened to me and I foolishly signaled with a double whistle and my partnered really wanted the call I would give it to him/her. My explanation to the unhappy Coach. Coach in our pregame we agreed whoever the play was going to would take the call. Coach it's impossible to have a block and charge on the same play I'm sure you agree. He would say yes and we would play on. Hey this is my hyopothetical play and I can end it this way if I like........ [/B][/QUOTE]Oh? And what ever happened to the concept of getting the call right? You <b>know</b> that you're right, but you're gonna go with your partner's call anyway?

Strange philosophy, Gordon, strange philosophy.

Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to solicit that invitation...)

I'm thinking 2-man here, but it can definately happen in 3-man.

I'm lead and I have a banger to call. It is bang-bang, blow the whistle and SELL your call. As the calling official you are into making the call and possibly didn't hear your partner's whistle (I have yet to notice anyone pointing this out) to even know to look what he has.

As the trail it is easier to notice if your partner has blown his whistle if you have simultaneious whistles because there isn't as much of a crowd in front of you. As lead you may have 6 guys all taller than you (as my case more than not) and can't see your partner. Nevermind the fact you are selling the snot out of your call to let everyone know you were on top of the play.

You can try to be deliberate all you want, but in a close game, a loud gym, and one that needs to be sold, I'm likely not to think about my partner having the call.

Oh? And what ever happened to the concept of getting the call right? You <b>know</b> that you're right, but you're gonna go with your partner's call anyway?

Strange philosophy, Gordon, strange philosophy. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey J Not really. Impossible to have a block and charge on the same play. I trust my partner if he/she really feels strongly about it I have no problem giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather fall on the sword and have the crew look good than look like a bunch of nitwits calling a double foul. Incidentally in terms of getting it right a double foul is definitely wrong.