Charge and a block on the same play
 

Last night's varsity game, the dribbler collided with his defender. One ref signaled block, and the other ref signaled charge. They got together and gave a foul to each of them, and went to the possession arrow. I assume they got it right? Never seen this before.

That is correct under NFHS interpretations.

I am too lazy to type it out.
 

Casebook play 4.19.8 Situation C.

Peace

They got it right a couple of years ago, but today we would go with the POI for all double fouls.

You may want to rethink your answer or read the caseplay cited by JRut.

You're absolutely right - I only responded to the part about going with a double foul - didn't read through the entire sitch.

The play I referenced had the ball go in the basket. The coach did not tell us if the ball went into the basket. It is still possible that there would be an AP arrow if the ball did not go through the basket. POI is when there is possession or team control. There is no team control on a shot. It just depends based on the information we have.

Peace

Coach, some of the posters are dropping hints without telling you what is wrong with that ruling. Since both fouls are assessed, it's a double foul and play is resumed at the point of interruption. Since you use the term "dribbler" and not "shooter", we're assuming that no shot was involved. If the dribbler didn't release a shot, then the dribbler's team still had team control. In that case, the point of interruption is a throw-in for the team in control (the dribbler's team).

If the dribbler had released a try before the collision, then team control ended and the POI depends on whether the try is successful or not.

I refer to this play as player control and a block. Not charging. Actually charging can be a defender.

Or my wife at the mall.:eek:

It's not a player control foul.

A player control foul is a common foul.

Since this is a double foul, neither foul can be a common foul.

Therefore, it is not a player control foul.

Further, if the ball is shot before the foul and goes in, it counts.

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.

AAAAGGGHHH!!! A BLARGE!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!

MTD, Sr.

Blarge...

Yuck!!!!

Hold Your Whistle:)

Nothing wrong with a double whistle. Hold your signal.

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.

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

[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.

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

ich habe ein frage.....
 

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.

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. . . .

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.

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?

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.

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:eek:

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

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.

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. :D

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.

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. ;)