Blarge alert!!!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Does NCAA have a case play for this?

Yes, but it contains some fuzzy wording.

A.R. 172.

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.
(Men) 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.
(Rule 2-11.7.f, 7-4.1.d and 7-5.8)
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 end line with the
privilege to run the end line. 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 7-5.9)
(Women) In (1) and (2), when the officials signal simultaneously,
they shall get together and agree to give the call to the official who
had the play originate in his/her primary. When the officials disagree
that the fouls occurred simultaneously, they shall determine which
foul occurred first. Once a decision is reached, that foul is reported to
the official scorer and the appropriate penalty is assessed.
(Rule 4-9, 4-10, 4-29 and 4-35.1)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Though this is in the C's PCA -

blow and hold, blow and hold, blow and hold especially knowing who your partner is (Burr) and knowing he's probably going to come out strong with a call on a play like this

Looking at the video, the C is very high up -- above the top of the key, it appears.

Perhaps if the C made the right call and Burr the wrong call rather than vice versa, I'd feel more strongly about it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NCAA RULE is the same as the NFHS RULE. If two officials signal conflicting fouls on a play, then the resolution is a double foul.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A.R. 172.

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.
(Men) 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.
(Rule 2-11.7.f, 7-4.1.d and 7-5.8)
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 end line with the
privilege to run the end line. 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 7-5.9)

This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.

"The officials disagree."

Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by wrwom

I was watching the game and through the magic of DVR grab the play. Here it is, the slow motion starts about 29 seconds into the video. Since I am very new to this I won't offer an opinion, but I would love to follow the discussion on why this is a block or charge.

Not even close.

Also Burr's call, as it was a secondary defender.

Agree that C was in poor position - he likely did not have a good look at how late the defender was.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.

"The officials disagree."

Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.

I honestly think it is assumed that if you made a call, you signaled the type of foul. You really have not called anything until you signal anyway.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.

"The officials disagree."

Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.

1. I used the word "signal" specifically for you. I knew that you would state your opinion about there being a difference between signalling a foul and calling a foul. The truth is that there isn't one. The NCAA rules writers use those words interchangeably.

2. The reason that I wrote that the wording was fuzzy is because I believe that this instance of "disagree" is an error and should read "agree" instead: "(Men) In (1) and (2), the two officials disagree that the fouls
occurred simultaneously."

3. How this play was handled by Jim Burr, who is one of the best in the business and has been for some time, should serve as conclusive proof to you of how it is to be done at the NCAAM and NFHS levels. I included the NCAAW ruling from the AR as well, so that you would know that what you espouse is actually the NCAAW ruling and definitely different.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

[1]Not even close.

[2]Also Burr's call, as it was a secondary defender.

[3]Agree that C was in poor position - he likely did not have a good look at how late the defender was.

1. I think it is a close call. The defender is obviously moving to his right at the time of contact, but that would be of absolutely no consequence had the dribbler still had a foot on the floor. There is no requirement that the defender be still or stationary. The correctness of the call hinges upon the offensive player going airborne and exactly when.

2. It was indeed a secondary defender, but this defender comes from outside of the lane and is moving towards the middle of the court. That's clearly the C's primary coverage area. The Lead should not be watching this defender. This is the opposite of what we normally see when the secondary defender is coming from the middle or weakside, out of the Lead's PCA, and trying to help with a drive on the C's side. So this was still the C's call, even though the crash involved a secondary defender.

3. The C does seem to get too high and possibly straight-lined as he ends up looking at the dribbler's back. It is difficult to see the defender move to his right AFTER the offensive player goes airborne from that angle. That is probably why the C deemed this a PC foul. Angles are of critical importance.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I honestly think it is assumed that if you made a call, you signaled the type of foul.

Peace

This is true, but this is not the point. The point is, does a preliminary signal absolutely obligate one to make a certain call. I see nothing which indicates this. Others here seem to indicate that the two officials making opposite preliminary signals necessitates the double foul call.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Prelim signals are to be handled with a double foul

Originally Posted by walter

If you have prelims, in NFHS, you have to penalize both.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Of course, the best way to avoid that situation is for the primary official to make the call, or for the two officials to not give a preliminary signal before making eye contact to determine who will sell the call.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If two officials signal conflicting fouls on a play, then the resolution is a double foul.

So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

[Raymond]

It was definitely a block but it was clearly in the C's primary.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. I think it is a close call. The defender is obviously moving to his right at the time of contact, but that would be of absolutely no consequence had the dribbler still had a foot on the floor.

It would be of no consequence if the guy had established LGP prior to the contact, but to my eye this guy has not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

Yep, that is exactly how it works.
Only one signal is given, then it is okay for only one type of foul to be reported. If two signals are given, then two fouls must be reported and the result is a double foul.
Neither official is permitted to simply drop his signal and walk away. If an official did that, then a coach would definitely have a right to get upset.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, that is exactly how it works.
Only one signal is given, then it is okay for only one type of foul to be reported. If two signals are given, then two fouls must be reported and the result is a double foul.

If the second official has his fist up, this is not a signal?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It would be of no consequence if the guy had established LGP prior to the contact, but to my eye this guy has not.

Seriously?

You don't believe that the defender ever had two feet on the floor and his torso facing the opponent at any time prior to the contact?

You may want to check the video again because I have to strongly disagree.

[btaylor64]

First of all it is a block. Player doesn't beat the alighted offensive player to the spot. This is where i don't like "takes it in the torso" philosophy. It is a decent, middle of the road philosophy if you ask me. There are way too many instances where a guy takes it in the torso and it should NOT be a charge.

Secondly, is most everybody saying that it would be a charge had he just tried to dribble past the defender instead of jump stop past him?

[dahoopref]

This is good stuff.

Was there a block/charge player earlier in the game? If there was, perhaps one of the officials was trying to call a similar foul on a play with similar consequence on that side of the court.