Blarge--does it exist?

[Jurassic Referee]

This is from a discussion being held over on the NFHS forum. This was posted by an official who calls himself Joe Advantage. It was in response to a poster asking how you should handle a classic "blarge"- i.e. one official calling a block and the other official calling a charge. It basically was the exact same play as outlined in case book play 4.19.8SitA.

Following are Joe Advantage's comments re: a blarge.

It is impossible. Someone is wrong. Legal guarding position was obtained or it was not a block OR it's a charge. IT IS NOT BOTH. That's a BS call. It's the worst call in basketball anyone who calls it does the game a great dis-service. How hard is to say to the other official "well, I didn't have the best look or you may have had a better look or it was your primary". It's a BS call. A total cop-out and I have never called it in 18 years and will NEVER call it. Plus read what is legal guarding position and what is a charge and tell me HOW you can have both. Impossible. It's one or the other. The book only gives you an escape route. In this case you have two bonehead officials who won't agree that someone had a better view.
First, there is NO rule for a "blarge". There is only a "what to do" if you have it, a "what to do" if you have two separate calls and can't agree on one of them. There is NO rule, only a resolution, and it's the only listed resolution because the NFHS did not want to say - "the two officials will have to stand there at mid-court and argue who is correct until a decision as to whether it was a legal guarding position or not is decided by the two officials involved. Again "COP-OUT" and please show me in the rule book how you can have legal guarding position on a player at the same time. Impossible, it's just two people with contradicting calls.
The case book isn't "rules". The forward states "the interpretations and rulings...are official" but they are NOT rules. They are listed as "situations" and if two knuckleheads call a double foul in situation 4.19.8SitC that's how to rule it, but NOWHERE does it say that you HAVE to call a double foul. And I still say "Don't" because you cannot have a charge and a block between the same two players at the same time. It's one or the other.

Those are JoeAdvantage's statements pretty much verbatim. Your comments? I'll hold mine until later.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

This is from a discussion being held over on the NFHS forum. This was posted by an official who calls himself Joe Advantage. It was in response to a poster asking how you should handle a classic "blarge"- i.e. one official calling a block and the other official calling a charge. It basically was the exact same play as outlined in case book play 4.19.8SitA.

Following are Joe Advantage's comments re: a blarge.

It is impossible. Someone is wrong. Legal guarding position was obtained or it was not a block OR it's a charge. IT IS NOT BOTH. That's a BS call. It's the worst call in basketball anyone who calls it does the game a great dis-service. How hard is to say to the other official "well, I didn't have the best look or you may have had a better look or it was your primary". It's a BS call. A total cop-out and I have never called it in 18 years and will NEVER call it. Plus read what is legal guarding position and what is a charge and tell me HOW you can have both. Impossible. It's one or the other. The book only gives you an escape route. In this case you have two bonehead officials who won't agree that someone had a better view.
First, there is NO rule for a "blarge". There is only a "what to do" if you have it, a "what to do" if you have two separate calls and can't agree on one of them. There is NO rule, only a resolution, and it's the only listed resolution because the NFHS did not want to say - "the two officials will have to stand there at mid-court and argue who is correct until a decision as to whether it was a legal guarding position or not is decided by the two officials involved. Again "COP-OUT" and please show me in the rule book how you can have legal guarding position on a player at the same time. Impossible, it's just two people with contradicting calls.
The case book isn't "rules". The forward states "the interpretations and rulings...are official" but they are NOT rules. They are listed as "situations" and if two knuckleheads call a double foul in situation 4.19.8SitC that's how to rule it, but NOWHERE does it say that you HAVE to call a double foul. And I still say "Don't" because you cannot have a charge and a block between the same two players at the same time. It's one or the other.

Those are JoeAdvantage's statements pretty much verbatim. Your comments? I'll hold mine until later.

I agree with him, but perhaps with a bit better use of paragraphs and maybe a little less repetition.

If I were ever to end up in a blarge situation, we certainly wouldn't come out with a double foul. I'd pretend I was working an NCAA-W game, if only for a moment.

But knock wood, it hasn't happened in 20 years, although earlier this year my partner and I both called a charge simultaneously by pointing down the floor.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

I agree with him, but perhaps with a bit better use of paragraphs and maybe a little less repetition.

If I were ever to end up in a blarge situation, we certainly wouldn't come out with a double foul. I'd pretend I was working an NCAA-W game, if only for a moment.

But knock wood, it hasn't happened in 20 years, although earlier this year my partner and I both called a charge simultaneously by pointing down the floor.

Rich:

I agree with you 100%. I have argued this point for years. The rules as written prohibit blarges. Either it is a block or it is a charge, not both.

MTD, Sr.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rich:

I agree with you 100%. I have argued this point for years. The rules as written prohibit blarges. Either it is a block or it is a charge, not both.

MTD, Sr.

Hey, where did this guy come from?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rich:

I agree with you 100%. I have argued this point for years. The rules as written prohibit blarges. Either it is a block or it is a charge, not both.

MTD, Sr.

I'm a hockey fan. The one call that infuriates me is a hook/hold on one player and a unsportsmanlike dive on the other. If he had to dive to go down, why penalize the hook/hold?

[Adam]

I'm not in agreement here. While I think it's not common, I think the rules allow for a block/charge just as they allow for a double foul away from the ball. It's very possible for two players to foul each other simultaneously; even if one has the ball.

A1 dribbling down the court holding up an "arm bar" and pushing B1 just as B1 is reaching and hacking the dribbling arm. What do you call?

Or A1 extending his arm to push B1 who is moving but not in LGP; both players fall. What do you call?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not in agreement here. While I think it's not common, I think the rules allow for a block/charge just as they allow for a double foul away from the ball. It's very possible for two players to foul each other simultaneously; even if one has the ball.

A1 dribbling down the court holding up an "arm bar" and pushing B1 just as B1 is reaching and hacking the dribbling arm. What do you call?

Or A1 extending his arm to push B1 who is moving but not in LGP; both players fall. What do you call?

That's is not a blarge. What you've described is a bareach (in layman's terms) or an illegal use of push. In your second one, it's a blush.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not in agreement here. While I think it's not common, I think the rules allow for a block/charge just as they allow for a double foul away from the ball. It's very possible for two players to foul each other simultaneously; even if one has the ball.

(a) A1 dribbling down the court holding up an "arm bar" and pushing B1 just as B1 is reaching and hacking the dribbling arm. What do you call?

(b) Or A1 extending his arm to push B1 who is moving but not in LGP; both players fall. What do you call?

Case (b) is easy: the contact is caused by A1. It is a foul for the defender causing a contact without having LGP. It is not required to have LGP at all times: the defender who has LGP at the moment of the contact doesn't have responsibility for it; the rules don't say that a defender not in LGP is responsible for any contact.

In case (a) the defender must have very long arms, if I picture correctly the situation. Penalize the first contact.

The rules don't prohibit a "blarge" call, just because they can happen; it's the fault of the officials, though. Blarges shouldn't happen if they make a good team job.

In FIBA we are required to raise the fist before giving the team control foul signal. This helps to avoid blarge calls, because it gives time to realize there has been a double whistle; the official with the play in their primary will decide if it is a charge or a block. Or maybe the officials will confer, if one of them has something that the other one could not see. Blarge calls happen, in fact, when one of the official makes immediately the team control foul signal.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have argued this point for years. The rules as written prohibit blarges.

Are you saying that case book play 4.19.8SitC doesn't exist, Mark? Or that you refuse to follow it?

Please elaborate.

[tomegun]

I will hold my comments until yours.

[deecee]

i agree with him -- you cannot have a block and a charge --

let me predict JR's response

"The rule states XYZ -- therefore XYZ"

rain -- he was calling the blarge BS -- which it is

[tjones1]

Ahhh if I remember, I believe this is one of the first topics I posted on whenever I joined The Forum. As I recall, MTD Sr. and I agreed on this subject, but like Tom, I'm holding mine until I hear yours!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tjones1

but like Tom, I'm holding mine until I hear yours!

Why? Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I certainly have mine, but that's just me and no one else. What I personally think should never be a factor in what anybody else thinks.

And I don't believe for a minute that anything I say will really have any affect on Tomegun's thinking either. He'll make up his own mind, never mind my view. And that's the way it should be.

[deecee]

I retract my earlier statement -- I now 100% agree with rain on all future and current threads...

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by deecee

rain -- he was calling the blarge BS -- which it is

What an insightful and informative comment. Your wisdom and personal maturity come from where, pray tell?

why can't you just agree with me all the time, like you agreed in another thread? )