Charge and a block on the same play

[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?

[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.

[RookieDude]

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.

A few observations:

Blarge = 1 foul on A1 and 1 foul on B1..."dems the rules".

I have never seen it called that way in this area..."dats da way it is".

One official says it is day,
One official says it is night...

Soooo, per the rules...is it now night and day at the same time.

One official says it is day,
One official says it is night...

They get together and decide whos observatory they are looking out of.

JR...don't be dissappointed...I (try to) justify this by saying that no way both officials called a block and a charge at the same time.
One HAD TO BE first....even if by a nanosecond.

I pregame the heck out of this...if it happens..we get together to determine who HAD IT FIRST. (Hopefully the official who's PCA it was in)
BTW...have not had this happen in over 10 years.

Jumpball and Foul signals happen "simultaneously" once in awhile.

We don't get both of those...we get together and choose one.

Same philosophy...please don't ruin my purification of the "blarge" rule.