OK, I agree. Let's say that if it is so strange the technical calls itself, well, then it's there.

I was thinking much the same thing: One official has the correct call; one has the right call. Nothing at all like a blarge situation. Either call is a good call. But one is a much better call.

Agree, totally....

BTW, even though a blarge isn't the situation in the OP, (and maybe I need a new thread) isn't a BLARGE, in reality, like a multiple foul, (4-19 Article 11) two A players hitting B1 at approximately the same time? The book says we charge both A players with fouls, and shoot 2 sets of whatever...is that being done, by anyone, in reality? And just because it's in the books, do we have to charge the multiple, or do we choose to see one player foul before the other one?

No, it is treated as a double foul, not a multiple foul.

Charge each with a foul. If there is team control, go to POI. If not, go to the AP arrow.

Personally, I would rather have the officials talk and come out with one call, but it's not what the NFHS wants.

I don't understand your explanation. Article 11 is a multiple foul, not a double foul. What is the remedy for that situation, and do we ever charge a double? I have never seen it called (and sure to draw BillyMac's sarcasm about Northern Utah) here in NU....Isn't that one rule we all tend to ignore?

What does this have to do with it?

A multiple foul is B1 & B2 fouling A1. A double foul is A1 and B1 fouling each other. Not sure what your question is.

Just another ref: RichMSN in #49 above gave an explanation that mentioned a double foul when I was trying to get a ruling about a multiple foul...I know the difference, hence my question....I think I need to start another thread dealing with that, to end some confusion...I am mixing up threads and thoughts...sorry...

You compared a blarge to a multiple foul.

A blarge only involves two players, one from each team.

Yes, thank you...I am aware of the difference...I meant....Shouldn't we treat a blarge like a mulitiple foul, in that we shouldn't (IMHO) EVER be calling a multiple foul....We should see one foul by A1 before the other by A2, in order to not be killing Team A. I have never heard of anyone calling a multiple foul, even though the rule is on the books. Therefore, I ask, shouldn't we treat a blarge the same way? Not call it? See the block or the charge, and not call both? I can't believe that anyone teaches to call a blarge....that is the only way I am comparing the blarge with the multiple foul...I hope that makes sense, because I am confused at the philosphy of calling both....

There is no "philosophy" in calling both. There's simply a case play that specifies if both a PC and a block are called at the same time by two different officials, then it must be treated as a double foul.

You see, in a multiple foul two different points of contact were observed. Therefore the officials can get together and decide which was first. In the case of a "blarge" two officials saw the same action and judged it differently. There is no deciding which was first.

Ok, I get the point. I don't think anyone wants to call a blarge. However, many feel that, because of the case play involving a blarge, we are obligated to do so if two officials give conflicting preliminary signals on the play. I have maintained that this is an option, but the preliminary signals do not set the call in stone. This thread is an example of this. One official signals a personal. The other signals a technical. OOPS! Somebody made a mistake. Same as when the blarge was called. Unfortunate, sure. But we get together and figure out which is right, as best we can, and go forward.

"Ute" means people of the mountains ...
 

just another ref: I can't find blarge in Rule 4 Definitions, but I agree with you.

Thanks, I do appreciate your comments, and I understand that philosophy from your posting...thanks, again....

The fact is that this (the blarge) is the only case where the preliminaries are binding. They are only binding because of the case play. You'll have to talk to the NFHS rules committee to determine why they did it that way.