What do you have... Strange play

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What does this have to do with it?

My point is that there are situations that aren't fuzzy at all, and there are some fuzzy ones. If the OP is a bit fuzzy on whether the ball was live; it was live.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

The fact is that the case play does not mention signals, preliminary or any other kind. How do we know, based on this case play alone, that the committee does not want a double foul call even if both players only went up with a fist?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The fact is that the case play does not mention signals, preliminary or any other kind. How do we know, based on this case play alone, that the committee does not want a double foul call even if both players only went up with a fist?

Is there a case play separate from the one posted earlier in this thread? Because that one clearly doesn't say what half this group seems to think it does.
________
LIVE SEX

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by youngump

Is there a case play separate from the one posted earlier in this thread? Because that one clearly doesn't say what half this group seems to think it does.

You mean this one:

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 one foot 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)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by youngump

Is there a case play separate from the one posted earlier in this thread? Because that one clearly doesn't say what half this group seems to think it does.

4.19.8 C, which BillyMac was kind enough to post again, (what, no picture?) is the play in question. Would you care to elaborate on what you think the play does or doesn't say?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The fact is that the case play does not mention signals, preliminary or any other kind. How do we know, based on this case play alone, that the committee does not want a double foul call even if both players only went up with a fist?

Because every official I've talked to with significant experience acknowledges what this case says we're supposed to do; even if they don't like it. Association leadership in three different associations across two different states (one IAABO and one not) all say it without a single detractor.

[BBall_Junkie]

Regardless of how much pregaming, on occassion "blarges" do happen as we are human. It happens to the best of us. Just ask Verne Harris who had one a couple years ago in a Final Four game (I forget who the partner was). Mr. Harris is one of the best and highly accomplished as he has worked the finals more than once. They went with the double foul, because that is the rule and the only way out of this mess because it is defenseable by the rules. Nothing else can be supported by the rules. If this ruling is good enough for guys at this level it is good enough for me (if I ever get in this sitch, which knock on wood, I have not yet had in my years of officiating) regardless of what Northern Utah says.

Coincidentally, I did see a one man blarge a few years ago in a High School tourney. I showed up early for my game and was watching a friend work when he had a crash right in front of him as the lead. He is the only one that had a whistle... he yelled "offense" while giving the block mechanic. We give him $#% about that play to this day!!!!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C, which BillyMac was kind enough to post again, (what, no picture?) is the play in question. Would you care to elaborate on what you think the play does or doesn't say?

The case play says that one official calls a charge and the other a block. That's different from making a signal. If one official called OOB off white and another called OOB off blue would you give the ball to both teams? No, but if the officials got together and determined that it did in fact go off both players at the same time, that's a jump ball.
The same can apply to the foul. I realize it's incredibly uncommon to see a charge and a block on the same play, but if one official has the offensive player lowering his shoulder into the lgp defender and other official has the lgp defender throwing his opposite hip in the offensive players body, then you have a double foul, no? To me that's a much more natural interpretation of that play cited then to say that because the officials disagreed initially it must be a double foul.
________
COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

[Adam]

Originally Posted by youngump

The case play says that one official calls a charge and the other a block. That's different from making a signal. If one official called OOB off white and another called OOB off blue would you give the ball to both teams? No, but if the officials got together and determined that it did in fact go off both players at the same time, that's a jump ball.
The same can apply to the foul. I realize it's incredibly uncommon to see a charge and a block on the same play, but if one official has the offensive player lowering his shoulder into the lgp defender and other official has the lgp defender throwing his opposite hip in the offensive players body, then you have a double foul, no? To me that's a much more natural interpretation of that play cited then to say that because the officials disagreed initially it must be a double foul.

Then you're alone in this thinking. Well, you and jar.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by youngump

The case play says that one official calls a charge and the other a block. That's different from making a signal. If one official called OOB off white and another called OOB off blue would you give the ball to both teams? No, but if the officials got together and determined that it did in fact go off both players at the same time, that's a jump ball.
The same can apply to the foul. I realize it's incredibly uncommon to see a charge and a block on the same play, but if one official has the offensive player lowering his shoulder into the lgp defender and other official has the lgp defender throwing his opposite hip in the offensive players body, then you have a double foul, no? To me that's a much more natural interpretation of that play cited then to say that because the officials disagreed initially it must be a double foul.

If you do a search on "blarge", you'll see this has been discussed many times.

For the most part, I don't know of anyone that disagrees with your logic. However, the case play is there in balck and white. I'm not sure the committee is saying the two fouls actually do happen at the same time; I believe they are trying to "teach" us to not give preliminary signals, or to come out with two calls, if the call should be in one official's primary. If we adhere to the proper mechanics of letting the primary official take the call, we would never have to use that case play. Ever. But, as BBall_Junkie previously mentioned, it happens, even at the top levels. So there is a procedure we need to follow, whether we agree with it or not.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by youngump

The case play says that one official calls a charge and the other a block. That's different from making a signal. If one official called OOB off white and another called OOB off blue would you give the ball to both teams?

Completely irrelevant analogy.

There is a case play. Making a preliminary signal is the same as a call in this case.

I would rather be able to talk with my partner, etc., but I do think there's great wisdom in the case play:

(1) I may not be with a partner I know and/or like. We could (theoretically) stick to our guns and insist we are right. Case play eliminates that.

(2) One team will feel like there's an ulterior motive for going with one call over the other. Case play means we can enforce this and tell the coaches "We have no choice. There is a specific play in the case book."

Why fight it? The book TELLS US how to deal with it should it happen. Much better than having to make something up.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Making a preliminary signal is the same as a call in this case.

So if this is the case, would it kill the powers that be to make an editorial change and clarify this? Two officials mistakenly give conflicting preliminary signals from opposite sides of the same contact, one a charge, the other a block. RULING: Even though it is impossible by definition, both players will be charged with a foul.

I honestly would have thought upon reading this case that the whole point was, that since it was part of a double foul, the foul by the shooter was not a PC foul and the basket could count.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you do a search on "blarge", you'll see this has been discussed many times.

For the most part, I don't know of anyone that disagrees with your logic. However, the case play is there in balck and white. I'm not sure the committee is saying the two fouls actually do happen at the same time; I believe they are trying to "teach" us to not give preliminary signals, or to come out with two calls, if the call should be in one official's primary. If we adhere to the proper mechanics of letting the primary official take the call, we would never have to use that case play. Ever. But, as BBall_Junkie previously mentioned, it happens, even at the top levels. So there is a procedure we need to follow, whether we agree with it or not.

The case play does not say anything about preliminary signals. It talks about the case where both officials CALL different things. The part I'm missing here is why everyone is so convinced that if you make the initial signal that you're bound to the double foul. The case play is about how to deal with the situation when you don't agree or saw different things.
There is not in black and white what people are saying is black and white. That isn't the same as saying that the procedure doesn't exist as an unwritten rule. But this case play does not say what people are saying it does.
________
HotBritney22

[JMUplayer]

Wasn't the intent of this post --- I'm the OP

Any association or person that says this has never happended is just full of it or they don't sell any block/charge calls and i think that is worse.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by youngump

The case play does not say anything about preliminary signals. It talks about the case where both officials CALL different things. The part I'm missing here is why everyone is so convinced that if you make the initial signal that you're bound to the double foul. The case play is about how to deal with the situation when you don't agree or saw different things.
There is not in black and white what people are saying is black and white. That isn't the same as saying that the procedure doesn't exist as an unwritten rule. But this case play does not say what people are saying it does.

At what point do you suggest that two officials have "CALLED" different things? Only if both have reported to the table?

The call(s) is(are) made when a signal is given that indicates what the call is...even if it is the preliminary.

This is simply black and white no matter how much you would like it to be otherwise.