What do you have... Strange play

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You're preaching to the choir here, my friend.

One person doesn't make it a choir. As much as I dislike the case ruling, I'd follow it in a game. I couldn't justify anything else. It's never happened to me, but I could see it happening considering how we tend to signal our blocks/PC fouls around here.

And the blarge has NOTHING to do with this play at all. Trying to make it so appears somewhat ignorant, IMO. There are plenty of times opposite signals could be given and we have to decide between the two -- the blarge just isn't one of them, BY CASE PLAY.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

As much as I dislike the case ruling, I'd follow it in a game. I couldn't justify anything else. It's never happened to me. There are plenty of times opposite signals could be given and we have to decide between the two, the blarge just isn't one of them, BY CASE PLAY.

I agree. I too have never seen a blarge in twenty-eight years, but because I have seen it discussed here, on exams, on other forums, and in the case play cited, it must have happened somewhere (but never in Northern Utah), sometime. If it ever happens in my game, and my mechanics, and a good pregame, for some reason don't prevent it, I'm calling it by the book.

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 RichMSN

One person doesn't make it a choir. As much as I dislike the case ruling, I'd follow it in a game. I couldn't justify anything else. It's never happened to me, but I could see it happening considering how we tend to signal our blocks/PC fouls around here.

And the blarge has NOTHING to do with this play at all. Trying to make it so appears somewhat ignorant, IMO. There are plenty of times opposite signals could be given and we have to decide between the two -- the blarge just isn't one of them, BY CASE PLAY.

This is kinda the point I was trying to make. The ONLY reason the blarge play can be a double foul is because there is a case play, not because a signal is irreversible.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is kinda the point I was trying to make. The ONLY reason the blarge play can be a double foul is because there is a case play, not because a signal is irreversible.

I don't think anyone was arguing that, though.

I think this play could involve the C and T talking, although if I was the T and the C called a charging foul (not team control, since it's during a throw in), I would let it go. If asked, I would support the call, saying that the ball was available to the throw-in team, whether or not I'd started the count.

There is such a thing as a punishment fitting the crime and calling an intentional technical foul here does not seem to fit the situation, at all.

Personally, I do not know why the ruling bodies cling to the notion that the ball is dead between the goal and the ball being made available to the teams. Changing this would only change one thing, in my mind -- the right for the scoring team to call a time out in this interval and changing that wouldn't break my heart in the least bit.