Charge and a block on the same play

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

My comment about "some people not liking a call" was meant to focus on the bang-bang calls where you tend to have blarges. Yes, some won't like the routine travel call, but if they complain they quickly fall into the howler monkey category. I even go so far as saying that one should expect some voice from a coach on a bang-bang block/charge situation. IMHO, a coach not voicing is doing a disservice to her/his team.

As for the angles, it doesn't take into account experience. For example: I was T was back in transition and my P was a first-year. On a 1-on-1 breakaway, B fouls A and everyone knows it except my P. I'm still a few feet behind the division line, but I come up with the foul. Nobody said a darn thing even though I had by far the worst angle. But it was the right call.

Either way, the Fed has their approved ruling and that's what I call. I don't like to be a cause for inconsistency.

[Back In The Saddle]

How do you objectively decide who had the best angle? Must we now carry a protractor in our pockets? It would make more sense, IMHO, to simply say that whoever's PCA it is takes the call. In case of an overlap, we go with Nevada's tag-line solution.

[just another ref]

Okay, for whatever reason:

You had a better angle.

You have more experience and have seen more of these.

I'm bigger than you.

You had it last time.

Flip a coin.

Pick one call and go with it.

[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.