What do you have... Strange play

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

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.

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

....isn't a BLARGE, in reality, like a multiple foul......

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

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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....

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

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....

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.

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[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

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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