Question?
 

Ball in flight and you have a collision ,one calls a block and the other official calls a charge. Ball goes in the basket. What happens next????? Does the basket count and yopu go to the arrow????? Help

What rule set?
NFHS and NCAA men this is, by rule, a double foul. Count the basket and charge both players with a personal foul. Ball goes to the non-scoring team for an endline throwin. If the ball does not go through the basket, you'll go to the arrow to determine who gets the ball.

NCAA women, the officials must get together and decide which foul is correct.

Why do officials get together for NCAA women and not NFHS or NCAA men?

Because they are more highly evolved and don't let their egos get in the way as much. :p

:cool:

That's is what the respective rules sets say to do.

Where did you get this information from?

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

Um, maybe from the respective rule books. Ya' think?

Can and do? Certainly. But that's not what the rules say to do when two officials have made opposing calls.

NCAA Women's rule book.

Sometimes. Sometimes it's just the first to the table (had a senior ref in our association do it that way this year. They all laughed about it later.)

That covers the "do." The "can," however, depends on your definition of "can." By rule, it's not allowed. In practice, it probably happens more often than not.

So, one official yields his call to the other. This seems far more reasonable than calling a block and a charge on the same play, which, by definition is pretty much impossible.

We're not going to argue with you about this. That would be http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

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)

I am probably going to catch a lot of grief for what I am about to say, but so be it.

I have officiated women's college basketball since 1974 and I have many friends that still officiate either men's or women's college Div. I. BUT, while they are in the minority, there are far too many female college officials who officiate women's college basketball that have ego's the size of the moon. The vast majority of the ego-manical female officials are the young one's who are just coming into the game that think they know everything and deserve everything because they are females.

I have heard some of these officials complain about how a college forgot to provide towels after the game. And I just wanted to sit them in a timeout for about six months or complaining about travel per diem. I remember the first AIAW Large College Regional (today's NCAA Div. I) I officiated. I was paid $0.08/mile (one way) for travel expeneses. The officials' motel rooms were paid by the AIAW. There were two officials to a room (I did not have to share a room because I was the only male official assigned to the regional). We paid for our own meals. We were paid (wait for it, wait for it) $15 per game and officiated three games per day; the regional was a double elimination tournament back then. And when the game was over all of the coaches and players shook hands with the game officials and thanked them for officiating the game.

Ah, those were the days.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. The NCAA Women's CCA Manual has this play correct because it realizes that by rule (definition), it is impossible to have a "blarge." Either the defender had obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA Men's/Women's and FIBA) a legal guarding position before the contact occurs or the defender has not. Right or wrong, when I am officiating a NFHS, FIBA, or NCAA Men's game, I pregame "blarges" out of existence.

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

I know what book that's from. It wasn't Longfellow.

One thing that makes me question this is 2.6. When the conflicting signals are a foul and a violation, obviously something has to give, so the officials are directed to decide which occurred first. This tells us that one official's signal is expendable.

Nfhs
 

Federation you have to report both and go to the arrow on a missed basket. If made count it and give teh the non scoring team for an endline throw in...

Plain and simple, that is the correct way to do it in HS, anything else in wrong.

This is the key. Who says you have to report anything? Haven't we all made a fist, but then just called the out of bounds? When does it become binding? The C has started his PC signal when he sees the lead come in with an emphatic block signal. His hand barely touches his head, and he was kinda shaky on the call in the first place. He scratches his head and gives up the call to his partner. At what point would it be too late to turn back?

I view the case play as a last resort.

Sure, and hopefully it will be a PC. A player only looses LGP by stepping on the sideline...they don't become a free-for-all target for a collision. If the call depends on LGP, it is a block since they don't have LGP. If it doesn't depend on LGP, it is a PC foul. (I know I may be in the minority on this, but being right is not alway easy :D ).

In this case (even if you disagree with my opinion on LGP/OOB) it is a discussion over a matter of rule, not judgement. In that case, the discussion and a single call is warranted.

Only because they are two different acts/infractions, not two opinions of the same act/infraction.

For the record, let's say the call does depend on LGP. And let's say that the call in the case play does, as well. This makes the two plays the same other than the line being involved somewhat removes the gray area. I'm not sure whether your post helps my argument or hurts it.:D

He always needs more, no matter what. You're wasting your time discussing anything with him. Ignore.

I don't know it. Got a hint? I did a search and it says "author unknown".

I don't know either, but I do know that your argument is so poor that nothing much could hurt it.

Again, the rule is clear. If you think the rule (throught the case play) is also "wrong", submit a proposed rule / case change to the FED (probably through your local state).

After further research, I realize I was wrong. :(
While it seems to be derived from the Bible, it is not a direct Biblical quote.

I promise you...
 

in that scenario, each coach is going to see the call that benfits them and unfortunately, this is one of the rules that coaches tend to know. I've had it happen to me and my partner gave it up to me. The penalized coach knew the proper way to report that and he chewed us for not doing it properly. We always discuss the dreaded blarge in our pregames and most of the time we all agree to do it by the book. If I had my way all the time we would do it by the book every time.

And this, I think, is why the rules committee says to go with a double foul. As Jeff R alluded to previously, it's the method that provides the least resistance. Neither coach can complain that he got screwed by the results of an officials' conference.
It's also a strong incentive not to give preliminary signals too quickly.

If you go with the double foul both coaches will complain that they were screwed by the lack of a conference. This was my idea all along. One official gave a signal too quickly, and when he sees that his partner has something else, he may be perfectly content to yield to his partner's call.

If you pick one call, one coach is going to complain that one official got "overruled" by the other one.

By going with the rule book, you simply have to say "Coach, by rule we have to go with both." It's simple, quick, both coaches are equally affected, and you've got the rule to back you up. This last part is most important, because you're assignor is less likely to back you up if you have not applied the rule correctly in this situation.

Bottom line, the rule is clear and life gets much easier when you officiate by the rules. Ignoring them (or not knowing them) is what gets officials into trouble.

Does there have to be a shot and/or an airborne shooter for this case to apply?

No, this is just to clearly indicate that the consequences of a PC foul are no longer valid when it turns into a double foul.....the basket counts if it goes. Even without the shot, it is no longer a PC foul and will be resumed at the POI as if it were a player without the ball that was part of the double foul.

Now you're overthinking it.

Just to clarify (I'm sure Camron already knows this), the reason the consequences of a PC foul no longer apply is that it is not a player control foul at all. By definition, a player control foul is a COMMON FOUL committed by the player in control of the ball. But a double foul, by definition, is NOT a common foul. Therefore, the charge committed by the ballhandler cannot be a player control foul. So the ball does not immediately become dead if the try has already been released.

Hope that makes sense.

So getting back to your previous post, why is it OK for the NCAA women officials to get together and discuss play and NOT NFHS?

I agree with not giving the preliminary signal too quickly!!!

Because that's the way the NCAAW powers-that-be want it handled.

I don't want to sound like an a55 and question you, but where are you getting this information from? And why is it different in NCAA Men?

I'm just repeating what I've learned from NCAA refs who frequent this board. Hopefully one of them will answer.
As for why it's different than NCAA Men. Simply because they have different governing bodies who apparently view this issue differently.

Because the Men's side could give a damn what the Women's side does. There are different rules, mechanics and officiating philosophies on both sides. Why is this any different?

Peace

Rut: I understand what you are saying about different rules, mechanics and philosophies between the two sides. IMO, what Snag is saying is that for NCAA women, if “blarge” occurs, officials would get together and determine the correct ruling - correct? In the same sense, if high school or NCAA men's officials get together on "blarge" and try to determine which foul (block or charge) occurs first, are they misapplying the rules because BY RULE it should be called a double foul?

IMO, it seems like this should either be called a block or a charge. There should be some sort of universal ruling or consistency to it. I just don't understand and know why they should be called any different (regardless of NFHS, college men or womens). I wish I can find a case play in the 2008 NCAA Men's and women's rulebook but can't. Could someone enlighten me and direct me case plays in the previous NCAA rule book?

Thanks

They apply the rule based on interpretation. The Women's side decided to handle the situation differently. It is that simple. Do not make this too complicated.

It really does not matter what you or I think. The governing bodies have the right to do what they want and apply rules the way they want to. Whether you or I agree with it is not the issue at all. And you are not going to find rulings in the rulebook anymore for the NCAA, they created a casebook. They took all the accepted rulings out of the rulebook.

Peace

Just do it, and don't make a big production of it. One guy walks away from the call. (was it ever really there?) It's really a non-issue the vast majority of the time.

Except for two things.
1. It's the incorrect way to do it, by rule.
2. A lot of coaches know this, and it would be my luck that the one time I did it the coach would know the rule and my assigner would be all over my ***.
3. Integrity.

1. I think either way is okay by rule, depending on the details of the situation.

2. Skeptical about this one.

3. I don't see that as an issue here. I really don't consider my idea here to be
anything shady.


One more thing. If you do go with a double foul here, how is it reported? Does one guy report the double foul or does each one report his own call?

Not really. If officials signal opposite calls, then you are stuck. No one is talking about creating this situation if there is proper communication. But you cannot just look the other way. This is why both officials should not be signaling.

You would be surprised. But it is not during the game you have to worry about. After the game when they call your supervisor or the interpreter, then they will see you screwed up. And it will not be the coach that had the foul called in their favor either. ;)

It would be if you do not follow the rule. This is not a judgment call, you make this mistake you have only one option in Men's and NF Rules. It would be like calling an intentional foul and not awarding the proper foul shots.

Each official reports their foul. You do not pass off fouls to report.

Peace

One way to do it only...
 

Because the NFHS and Men's rule books do not allow for discussion. They state that both fouls MUST be reported as a double foul end of story. There is no discussion from us as officials. Either you do it the right way for the code you are working or you don't.

And there are a lot of coaches that know this is the case, trust me.

1. There is no question about the rule, it cannot be done "either way" in NFHS ball. The case book is an extension of the rule book, and it is extremely clear.
2. That's your right.
3. If I know the rule and purposefully ignore it because a) I don't like it, b) it's easier my way, and c) no one will know; that's an integrity issue.

Is it as big a deal as the NY State Attorney General paying for hookers while he's prosecuting a prostitution ring; and continuing to do so after he gets elected Governor? No.

It's probably more like taking a coffee from the break room and not putting your $.50 in the honor bucket.

one more angle
 

The whole problem here is whether the terms "call" and "signal" are meant to be interchangeable in this case.

A1 drives on B1, who is planted and waiting. I am positive that A1 is going to run him over, but at the last possible split second he crosses over and changes direction. B1 is fooled, just as I was, and attempts to recover but sticks his chest out and turns an almost certain PC foul into an obvious blocking foul. I see all this in my mind as I blow the whistle, but my hand didn't get the memo, and it grabs the back of my head. oops As I report the blocking foul, coach B says, "Hey, you signaled PC!" "Yep, I anticipated. My bad."

Same situation as above, but my partner also had the call and made the correct signal from the start.

Is a signal, which I knew was wrong by the time I made it, binding in either of the above cases? I don't see how it can be.

It doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone else.

Everyone else is on the same page when it comes to what the case book means when it says "calls." Do you really think there'd be a case play for a time when two officials separately report different fouls without conferring with one another? Have you ever seen that happen? I haven't even heard of it happening.

This case play is obvious unless you don't want it to be.

Gee, ya think, Mr. Obvious?

Integrity.

Rule
 

A.R. 154. (Men) A1 drives to the basket and:
(1) The referee calls a player-control foul and an umpire calls a block;
or
(2) The referee calls a charge and an umpire calls a block.
RULING: This is uncharacteristic of a double personal foul where
one official adjudicates the obviously committed fouls against two opponents.
In (1) and (2), the two officials disagree that the fouls occurred
simultaneously. In (1), the ball shall be awarded to Team A, the team in
control, at the point of interruption with no reset of the shot clock. In
(2), the two officials disagree as to whether there was a charge or a block,
however, the ball was released by A1. Although there is no team control
while a ball is in flight, when the goal is successful, play shall resume
at the point of interruption by awarding the ball to Team B, the team
not credited with the score, at the endline with the privilege to run the
endline. When the try is not successful, play shall resume at the point of
interruption with the use of the alternating possession arrow and a reset
of the shot clock.
(Rule 7-5.11)

Yep -- and which should it be? And should it be 30-second, 35-second or no shot clock? POI on all (non-flagrant, non-intentional) Ts, or all excpet excess TOs or none? Allow pre-game dunks or not? 28' coaching box, 14' coaching box, 6' coaching box or no box?

We all probably have opinions on what the rules "should be", but each sport has its own committee and, afaik, none of us is on any of them.