Question?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We're not going to argue with you about this. That would be

So here's the NFHS rule straight from the book. You can read it for yourself and take your argument to the committee:

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is successful. RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try and the goal is scored. Play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-36)

First, exactly who do you mean when you say we?

What constitutes a call? The officials may have originally had conflicting signals, but one changed his call. What is wrong with that?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

First, exactly who do you mean when you say we?

What constitutes a call? The officials may have originally had conflicting signals, but one changed his call. What is wrong with that?

Well no one speaks for me.

I will say that what is wrong with "that" is the fact the rules do not support that point of view. This is not a situation where there is wiggle room. And if the rule sets want to change the rule that is fine with me. But even if the rules are changing someone is going to feel the officials made an arbitrary decision that is not going to look fair. And that is why I would have a problem with getting together and choosing one call over the other in this kind of situation.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

First, exactly who do you mean when you say we?

What constitutes a call? The officials may have originally had conflicting signals, but one changed his call. What is wrong with that?

You're apparently arguing what the rule "should be." The OP, and the other responses, deal with what the rule "is."

The rule is clear.

That said, there might be a better rule. If we're all clear on what is being discussed, the discussion will (might) go better.

(and, to be clear, this isn't the only thread in which this is an issue)

[just another ref]

We are talking about 4.19.8 Sit. C are we not? Is there anywhere else that refers to this as being a double foul? My problem with this has always been that it cannot be both a charge and a block, but has to be one or the other by definition. If the shooter pushed off with one arm while being hacked on the other arm, maybe, but if we are talking block/charge torso to torso, it has to be one or the other. If both officials stick with their original "call" we have a double foul with this case play for support, even though by definition what we have is impossible. In reality, even if both officials made a (too) quick signal, why not treat this situation just as we would if both had simply gone up with a fist. Go with one call, reached by quick eye contact if possible, by a brief conference if not possible.

[Adam]

It doesn't have to be anywhere else. This case play is definitive and authoritative.

Also, I disagree with those who say it's impossible. B1 sliding in a bit late while A1 reaches out and pushes B1 away with his forearm. They're both guilty.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Also, I disagree with those who say it's impossible. B1 sliding in a bit late while A1 reaches out and pushes B1 away with his forearm. They're both guilty.

While that is a block on B1, it is NOT a charge on A1. It is a PC foul, but not a charge...it's illegal use of hands or a push.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While that is a block on B1, it is NOT a charge on A1. It is a PC foul, but not a charge...it's illegal use of hands or a push.

While you're right, in real speed, it's indistinguishable.
Also, the signals are going to be the same as what we consider a blarge, so again, it's indistinguishable.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It doesn't have to be anywhere else. This case play is definitive and authoritative.

Also, I disagree with those who say it's impossible. B1 sliding in a bit late while A1 reaches out and pushes B1 away with his forearm. They're both guilty.

Even if B1 would have been late, if A1 reaches out and pushes him, sounds like a PC foul to me.

[Adam]

It's possible for this push to occur simultaneously with the blocking foul (contact on the torso).

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In NFHS, refs can and do get together and decide on one call.

Um, I think not if you have and block and charge (Blarge) mechanic. You have to report both in Federation. If the ball is in flight, you go to the AP.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Um, I think not if you have and block and charge (Blarge) mechanic. You have to report both in Federation. If the ball is in flight, you go to the AP.

Mechanics are not mentioned in the case in question. How could you possibly be required to report both? Picture this. Defender is there all day. Dribbler runs squarely over him. One official signals PC, but the other noticed that the defender's foot was on the sideline. Are these two not allowed to confer and get the call right?

[Adam]

Do you not believe us that this is the NFHS rule?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Do you not believe us that this is the NFHS rule?

If the above mentioned case play is the whole deal, then no I don't believe it has to be a double foul. Is there more?

[Adam]

I don't understand why you need more. It's pretty clear. By "calls," it's referring to the preliminary signals. On top of that, the voices of experience here (I'm not counting myself among those voices, BTW) say the same thing. The voices of experience in my local association say the same thing. Even though a lot of officials ignore the rule and do it their own way only to laugh later, I've never heard one indicate they thought the rule was different than we've stated here.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Do you not believe us that this is the NFHS rule?

There are none so blind as they who will not see.