Charge and a block on the same play

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You might to re-think yours, Joe.

If the shot is released before either foul occurs and is no good, then you penalize both fouls and go to the AP arrow. SO the OP could very well have been enforced correctly.

What shot was released? The player is dribbling in the OP so after rethinking it, I'm still going with POI.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

What shot was released? The player is dribbling in the OP so after rethinking it, I'm still going with POI.

Joe, you are absolutely right about going with POI, regardless of whether the ball has been released on a try or not.

Of course, if the ball had been released on a try prior to the foul, the POI would be no team control and we'd go to the arrow. I don't think that's what the OP was describing after reading it again.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Joe, you are absolutely right about going with POI, regardless of whether the ball has been released on a try or not.

ABsolutely correct. ALL double fouls now resume at the POI; and sometimes the POI is the arrow.

[JoeTheRef]

[QUOTE=Scrapper1]ABsolutely correct. ALL double fouls now resume at the POI; and sometimes the POI is the arrow.[/QUOTE]

Well said, and the highlighted part is something I've never heard anyone say. Thanks.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Of course, if the ball had been released on a try prior to the foul, the POI would be no team control and we'd go to the arrow.

Also not quite right. If the try is good, then POI will be the opponents' endline throw-in. Use the AP arrow only if the try is not good.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Also not quite right. If the try is good, then POI will be the opponents' endline throw-in. Use the AP arrow only if the try is not good.

Touche

[grunewar]

Question - As has been discussed many times, a blarge can be a controversial call at best (50% like it, the other half, not so much), and is often incorrectly called by many of us inexperienced refs. How many senior refs have called the double foul? How often have you called it? How did it go over (not that that really matters)? Explanation ensue? Wish you could have it back? More difficult to justify than calling just a block or a charge? Just curious.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by grunewar

How many senior refs have called the double foul? How often have you called it? How did it go over (not that that really matters)? Explanation ensue? Wish you could have it back? More difficult to justify than calling just a block or a charge? Just curious.

It's one of those things that happens to everybody if you work long enough. Heck, it happened in the Final Four of the NCAAs last year, I think.

It's happened to me once, where I called a block in my primary and the Lead reached across the lane to call the charge. It actually went over ok. Neither coach loved it, but they recognized that nobody got the short end of the stick.

It's not hard to justify the double foul at all. "Coach, by rule, once we both signal. . ." Simply saying "by rule" is all the justification you need.

Do I wish I had it back? No, because it was definitely a block. Do I wish my partner had been officiating his primary? Well. . . .

[just another ref]

Am I the only one that questions this application of the rule? By definition, is it not impossible for the play to be both a block and a charge? Couldn't it be like
2.6? In this case instead of deciding which occurred first, they must decide which occurred?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Am I the only one that questions this application of the rule? By definition, is it not impossible for the play to be both a block and a charge? Couldn't it be like
2.6? In this case instead of deciding which occurred first, they must decide which occurred?

Imagine that on a particular play, only one whistle was sounded. That official (say the Lead) signals block because in his judgment, the correct call is a block. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a block would stand.

Imagine the same play happening, but instead of the Lead signalling, the Trail signalled. In his judgment, it is a PC foul. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a PC would stand.

Now - the same play happens again and two whistles and two signals: one of each. Each official is signalling what their judgment is on the play. To take away the call of a block and only go with a PC is like saying the judgment of the official calling block is less authoratative than that of the official calling a PC.

If this notion of disregarding judgment is allowed (which is what happens when the two get together and one decides to not follow through on his signalled call), then why accept the judgment of the block-calling official when he was the only one that had a whistle?

The same is true for the vice-versa situation.

That's why we are to have a fist for fouls, and to make eye contact with our partner.

The above does not include cases where there was a travel before the foul, or a player was pushed into the ball carrier, etc.... it only applies to judgments on the same contact.

[lukealex]

Make sure I have this straight:

We have a blarge. At work so no books
No shot: POI
Shot doesn't go in: POI which is AP
Shot goes in: Counts and POI is B's ball for endline throw in. Why does the shot count, since half the double foul is a PC foul?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by lukealex

Make sure I have this straight:

We have a blarge. At work so no books
No shot: POI
Shot doesn't go in: POI which is AP
Shot goes in: Counts and POI is B's ball for endline throw in.

All correct.

Why does the shot count, since half the double foul is a PC foul?

Because the foul against the offensive player is NOT a player control foul. A player control foul is a COMMON foul. And what we have in this situation is a DOUBLE foul. Since a double foul is not a common foul, the foul against the offensive player is simply a charging foul; but not a player control. Therefore, the ball remains live and when it enters the basket is a successful try.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by lukealex

Make sure I have this straight:

We have a blarge. At work so no books
No shot: POI
Shot doesn't go in: POI which is AP
Shot goes in: Counts and POI is B's ball for endline throw in. Why does the shot count, since half the double foul is a PC foul?

I only count half the points -- in the case of a three I have game management affix a .5 poster next to the score. At least we wont go to overtime

[lukealex]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

All correct.

Because the foul against the offensive player is NOT a player control foul. A player control foul is a COMMON foul. And what we have in this situation is a DOUBLE foul. Since a double foul is not a common foul, the foul against the offensive player is simply a charging foul; but not a player control. Therefore, the ball remains live and when it enters the basket is a successful try.

Thanks - forgot about about the mention of the double foul changing the status of the PC foul

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Imagine that on a particular play, only one whistle was sounded. That official (say the Lead) signals block because in his judgment, the correct call is a block. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a block would stand.

Imagine the same play happening, but instead of the Lead signalling, the Trail signalled. In his judgment, it is a PC foul. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a PC would stand.

Now - the same play happens again and two whistles and two signals: one of each. Each official is signalling what their judgment is on the play. To take away the call of a block and only go with a PC is like saying the judgment of the official calling block is less authoratative than that of the official calling a PC.

If this notion of disregarding judgment is allowed (which is what happens when the two get together and one decides to not follow through on his signalled call), then why accept the judgment of the block-calling official when he was the only one that had a whistle?

The same is true for the vice-versa situation.

That's why we are to have a fist for fouls, and to make eye contact with our partner.

The above does not include cases where there was a travel before the foul, or a player was pushed into the ball carrier, etc.... it only applies to judgments on the same contact.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, sorta, I think, but questions remain.
As to the part about "some people wouldn't like it," while this is true, I see it as irrelevant since this is true no matter what is called or not called. My thought is simply that the two officials should get together and decide who had the better angle and go with that call, rather than let both foul calls stand, one of which we know is wrong. In fact rather than stay with the double foul, we could go with no foul at all and resume at POI. Don't throw stuff. I'm not saying I would do that now, just saying that this is a rule change possibility that I would find at least as fair as the way the rule is now.