What do you have... Strange play

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.