Blarge

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

You might want to read 4.19.7C and see if that changes your mind.

Bob - personally I think that's the worst case in the book. No reflection on you for citing it, just on the NF for having such a stupid interpretation. Double fouls are suppposed to be called when two players foul each other at the same time but utilizing two fouls that are not dependent on each other for the reason there is a foul.

OK, my grammer wasn't very good in that last sentence, but here's what I mean. I would call a double foul if, for instance, A1 elbowed B1 at the same time B1 elbowed A1. They are two separate fouls that have no nexus.

But to say a block and a charge can both be called at the same time for the same act (the collision) is ludicrous. The elements of a charge preclude there being a block, and the elements of a block preclude there being a charge. If the defender was set and maintained legal guarding position, there can be no block - only a charge. If the defender either did not attain or did not maintain legal guarding position - there cannot be a charge.

I think this rule interpretation by the NF stinks and is illogical to boot.

How can you have one single play called two opposing ways? You can't have a basket be good and be not good. You can't have a violation be a violation and be not a violation.

Now - I'll tell you how I really feel about it!