The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   What do you have... Strange play (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/50318-what-do-you-have-strange-play.html)

JMUplayer Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:42pm

What do you have... Strange play
 
JV Girls game.
Home team trails by one shooting one free throw off a old fashion 3 point play.
Home girl makes the free throw. I'm in the new trail after the free throw is made. The ball bounces 3 times and after 2 seconds or so i glance up the court. Girl from the Away team apparently was beyond half court for the free throw is running/jogging up the court to be the throw in person. Around the free throw line she PLOWS over the littlest girl on the other team.
It's not bad enough to be flag. foul.

What do you have?

One of the strangest plays i've seen.

What i think happended was the little girl who got plowed was face guarding not realizing the the ball wasn't attempting to be thrown in and the girl who was going to throw it in deciding plowing would be the best course of action.

tjones1 Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:18am

If I'm reading this right the ball is still dead as it's not at the disposal of the thrower. So unless it's intentional or flagrant it's nothing.

Adam Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMUplayer (Post 557832)
What i think happended was the little girl who got plowed was face guarding not realizing the the ball wasn't attempting to be thrown in and the girl who was going to throw it in deciding plowing would be the best course of action.

The way I read this, it sure looks intentional to me. The call here would be an intentional technical foul. Two free throws (for any player) and the ball at the division line.

mbyron Sat Dec 13, 2008 07:38am

Agreed, you must judge whether this was intentional or just dumb. Talk to dumb, penalize intentional, but do something with this.

Rich Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjones1 (Post 557835)
If I'm reading this right the ball is still dead as it's not at the disposal of the thrower. So unless it's intentional or flagrant it's nothing.

HTBT for this part. I may have started a count by this point, in which case it WOULD be at the disposal of the throw-in team.

In the real world, it would probably be called a personal foul, right or wrong.

tjones1 Sat Dec 13, 2008 01:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 557867)
HTBT for this part. I may have started a count by this point, in which case it WOULD be at the disposal of the throw-in team.

In the real world, it would probably be called a personal foul, right or wrong.


I agree. However, if the throwing team is hustling (as it sounds in the OP - and how I took it) back to make the throw-in and I don't think they are trying to delay I'm not going to start my count until it's at their disposal.

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 06:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMUplayer (Post 557832)
The ball bounces 3 times and after 2 seconds or so

4-4-7d: A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is available to a player after a goal.


This is more than enough time to consider this ball available. The ball is live. Call it a personal foul.

Juulie Downs Sat Dec 13, 2008 06:20pm

Had partner started the count? Would that make a difference?

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 06:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 557917)
Had partner started the count? Would that make a difference?


I guess it depends whether you want to say that since the count had not started, the ball was not at the players disposal, or the ball had been available for "2 seconds or so" which makes it at their disposal whether the count had started or not.

Adam Sat Dec 13, 2008 07:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557923)
I guess it depends whether you want to say that since the count had not started, the ball was not at the players disposal, or the ball had been available for "2 seconds or so" which makes it at their disposal whether the count had started or not.

The referee judges when to start the count. At the point he starts the count, that is when the ball becomes live. It does make a difference in whether this foul gets called intentional personal or intentional technical.

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 08:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557928)
The referee judges when to start the count. At the point he starts the count, that is when the ball becomes live. It does make a difference in whether this foul gets called intentional personal or intentional technical.


Theoretically, the two events happen at the same time. But the fact is that the count should start when the ball becomes live, not that the start of the count makes the ball live. So, in this case, if the C makes the foul call, and is aware, which he should be, that the ball was indeed available, he can call a personal foul whether the T is counting or not.

Adam Sat Dec 13, 2008 09:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557931)
Theoretically, the two events happen at the same time. But the fact is that the count should start when the ball becomes live, not that the start of the count makes the ball live. So, in this case, if the C makes the foul call, and is aware, which he should be, that the ball was indeed available, he can call a personal foul whether the T is counting or not.

The ball is not live when it is available; it is live when it is at the disposal of the thrower. There is a big difference. The ball is not live until the moment the official determines the ball is at the disposal of the thrower; which coincidentally is the same exact moment he starts his count.

One does not cause the other, but both should begin, by rule, at the exact same moment.

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557939)
The ball is not live when it is available; it is live when it is at the disposal of the thrower. There is a big difference.

6-1-2b: The ball becomes live when on a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.

4-4-7b: A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is available to a player after a goal.




So the big difference is?

Adam Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557941)
6-1-2b: The ball becomes live when on a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.

4-4-7b: A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is available to a player after a goal.




So the big difference is?

That "available" isn't defined. :)
Interesting point, I guess I wasn't aware "available" was used. Since I didn't think it was there, I was thinking of the word in it's common everyday usage. IOW, the ball could be "available" to a player even though they were no where near it.

play: B1 gets a steal in A's front court and passes to B2 who is cherry-picking underneath B's basket. B2 scores quickly and the ball bounces under the basket. It's "available," yet I don't think anyone is going to start counting until A gets back to grab it and get out of bounds. We are supposed to start counting the moment it becomes available.

BTW, thanks for the correction on the term.

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557948)

play: B1 gets a steal in A's front court and passes to B2 who is cherry-picking underneath B's basket. B2 scores quickly and the ball bounces under the basket. It's "available," yet I don't think anyone is going to start counting until A gets back to grab it and get out of bounds. We are supposed to start counting the moment it becomes available.


I think this is a time when many officials are too generous in waiting to start the count. If all A's players are 50' away I think most of us will hold the count briefly, especially if one is hustling to get the ball. The problem I see is when B scores and presses and A is deliberately slow to pick up the ball, trying to allow themselves extra time to set up the press break, or sitting on a lead in the last minute of the game.

Juulie Downs Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557941)
6-1-2b: The ball becomes live when on a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.

4-4-7b: A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is available to a player after a goal.

Thinking about how I"ve called this in the past, and the OP, I'd say the ball was probably "available" when the foul happened. However, whose judgment counts? If the new trail (on the endline) hasn't yet started the count, maybe he thinks it wasn't "available". So is it his opinion or mine?

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 557958)
Thinking about how I"ve called this in the past, and the OP, I'd say the ball was probably "available" when the foul happened. However, whose judgment counts? If the new trail (on the endline) hasn't yet started the count, maybe he thinks it wasn't "available". So is it his opinion or mine?


If you called the foul, I would say it's yours.

Juulie Downs Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557959)
If you called the foul, I would say it's yours.

Hmmm.....

Gonna have to think about that a little. So I call it personal. P comes in and says, "Ball wasn't available yet, it's a T". Or we've got a double whistle, with P signalling the T. Is this just standard team disagreement? Someone gives, the other one takes it to the table?

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 557960)
Hmmm.....

Gonna have to think about that a little. So I call it personal. P comes in and says, "Ball wasn't available yet, it's a T". Or we've got a double whistle, with P signalling the T. Is this just standard team disagreement? Someone gives, the other one takes it to the table?

If you call a personal, he has no authority to set aside your call. Double whistle disagreement, according to all the blarge people, I guess you have to charge both.

Skarecrow Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557962)
If you call a personal, he has no authority to set aside your call. Double whistle disagreement, according to all the blarge people, I guess you have to charge both.

I am new to this board as you can tell from the number of postings, but I have to tell you, that here in Utah, we'd get slaughtered as refs if we dared to call a "blarge." That's like two cars crashing in the intersection...one has to be red and the other green...can't both be guilty of a foul on the same play.....at least, not in Northern Utah....

Juulie Downs Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557962)
If you call a personal, he has no authority to set aside your call. Double whistle disagreement, according to all the blarge people, I guess you have to charge both.

That's ridiculous. Can't call the same player for BOTH a personal AND a technical on the same play!! This isn't like a blarge at all. It's like a double whistle with one ref calling PC and the other a travel.

just another ref Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 557963)
I am new to this board as you can tell from the number of postings, but I have to tell you, that here in Utah, we'd get slaughtered as refs if we dared to call a "blarge." That's like two cars crashing in the intersection...one has to be red and the other green...can't both be guilty of a foul on the same play.....at least, not in Northern Utah....

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

BillyMac Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:45pm

The Beehive State ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 557963)
I am new to this board as you can tell from the number of postings, but I have to tell you, that here in Utah, we'd get slaughtered as refs if we dared to call a "blarge." That's like two cars crashing in the intersection...one has to be red and the other green...can't both be guilty of a foul on the same play.....at least, not in Northern Utah....

So in Northern Utah, when the lead blows his whistle, puts up a fist, puts his hand behind his head, and calls, "Player control", and at exactly the same time, the trail blows his whistle, puts up a fist, puts both hands on his hips, and calls, "Block", what do you do, by rule, next? And no fair answering that double whistles should have been covered in pregame, because even if it was, it happened, and now you have to deal with it, as NFHS rules dictate.

Skarecrow Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 557968)
So in Northern Utah, when the lead blows his whistle, puts up a fist, puts his hand behind his head, and calls, "Player control", and at exactly the same time, the trail blows his whistle, puts up a fist, puts both hands on his hips, and calls, "Block", what do you do, by rule, next? And no fair answering that double whistles should have been covered in pregame, because even if it was, it happened, and now you have to deal with it, as NFHS rules dictate.

Reality....Pregame, we discuss the "blarge" and the double whistle, and after we quickly eyeball each other, the Trail will normally defer to the Lead, since the play is coming at him....and not show his foul signal....therefore, there might be a double whistle, but only one foul shown to the teams and the fans...Isn't it true that only one of them is wrong? You can't really have a block if the B Player has a LGP....If he moved into place too late, bang him with the block....My opinion, but again we don't "blarge" in my neck of the woods....

Skarecrow Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557966)
You're preaching to the choir here, my friend.

Whew!!!! Thank you.....

Juulie Downs Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:52pm

But the blarge is completely irrelevant to the OP.

Skarecrow Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 557972)
But the blarge is completely irrelevant to the OP.

You're right...I agree, but an interim post made reference to the blarge....so I interjected...sorry about that....

BillyMac Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:59pm

In A Perfect World, In An Imperfect world ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 557970)
Reality....Pregame, we discuss the "blarge" and the double whistle, and after we quickly eyeball each other, the Trail will normally defer to the Lead, since the play is coming at him....and not show his foul signal....therefore, there might be a double whistle, but only one foul shown to the teams and the fans...Isn't it true that only one of them is wrong? You can't really have a block if the B Player has a LGP....If he moved into place too late, bang him with the block....My opinion, but again we don't "blarge" in my neck of the woods....

Almost everything you've stated is true. A good pregame, and an awareness that your partner also blew his whistle, and the patience to avoid preliminary signals, and to make eye contact, will all lead to the an avoidance of the blarge call. But you still haven't answered my question. You have two rookie officials working a freshman game, the lead and trail both blow their whistles at the same time, but due to the noise of the crowd, don't realize that two whistles have been blown. They also have eight players between them which prevents them from having eye contact with each other. Both present preliminary signals, one block, one charge, after which they realize that they haven't done what they talked about in pregame. What happens next, by rule, in Northern Utah?

Juulie Downs Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 557973)
You're right...I agree, but an interim post made reference to the blarge....so I interjected...sorry about that....

So what about my double whistle scenario? Since new trail is the one who's supposed to count, does his T stand? Or the personal by the center who thinks the ball is available, but isn't looking for the count?

Skarecrow Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 557975)
So what about my double whistle scenario? Since new trail is the one who's supposed to count, does his T stand? Or the personal by the center who thinks the ball is available, but isn't looking for the count?

My opinion only, but the two must talk it out--quickly--and the new Trail with the count would win out....his count, his call....

just another ref Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs (Post 557965)
That's ridiculous.

I agree

Quote:

Can't call the same player for BOTH a personal AND a technical on the same play!!
I agree, but if these were the signals that were made, according to several in other threads, a preliminary signal commits an official to that particular call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
If two signals are given, then two fouls must be reported.......
Neither official is permitted to simply drop his signal and walk away.


Quote:

This isn't like a blarge at all.
We have two officials who have signaled two different fouls on the same play, which by definition cannot occur on the same play, yet according to a certain case play we, depending on ones particular interpretation of this case play,
may/must report both fouls. Sounds eerily similar to me.

Nevadaref Sun Dec 14, 2008 04:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557913)
4-4-7d: A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is available to a player after a goal.


This is more than enough time to consider this ball available. The ball is live. Call it a personal foul.

I agree. Three bounces of the ball and two or three seconds elapsing is more than enough time. The ball is live. This is a common foul for charging. Award the bonus if necessary in an NFHS game.

Nevadaref Sun Dec 14, 2008 04:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557962)
If you call a personal, he has no authority to set aside your call. Double whistle disagreement, according to all the blarge people, I guess you have to charge both.

Don't be http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...otallthere.gif.

You are twisting a simple situation into something that it isn't.

That concept is not applicable here.

mbyron Sun Dec 14, 2008 09:28am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 557939)
The ball is not live until the moment the official determines the ball is at the disposal of the thrower; which not coincidentally is the same exact moment he starts his count.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

Rich Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557966)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 01:23pm

Has Anyone Actually Seen The Infamous Blarge ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 558033)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 01:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 558033)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 02:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558035)
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.

Adam Sun Dec 14, 2008 02:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 558004)
Fixed it for ya. ;)

Maybe, but you eliminated my sarcasm. :(

Adam Sun Dec 14, 2008 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 557957)
I think this is a time when many officials are too generous in waiting to start the count. If all A's players are 50' away I think most of us will hold the count briefly, especially if one is hustling to get the ball. The problem I see is when B scores and presses and A is deliberately slow to pick up the ball, trying to allow themselves extra time to set up the press break, or sitting on a lead in the last minute of the game.

Most, maybe, but not me. I give them "reasonable time" to pick it up and then I start counting. I start about 1 or 2 a game before the player picks it up.

Adam Sun Dec 14, 2008 02:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 557976)
My opinion only, but the two must talk it out--quickly--and the new Trail with the count would win out....his count, his call....

The trail is the only one who knows if the count had started yet. If the L calls the foul, it's up to the T to make sure it's the proper type (pesonal or technical).

mbyron Sun Dec 14, 2008 02:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 558040)
Maybe, but you eliminated my sarcasm. :(

Well, it was unmarked.

Adam Sun Dec 14, 2008 02:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 558043)
Well, it was unmarked.

That's the best kind.

Rich Sun Dec 14, 2008 03:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 558042)
The trail is the only one who knows if the count had started yet. If the L calls the foul, it's up to the T to make sure it's the proper type (pesonal or technical).

I gotta say, I think this is one case where you could be completely correct in the rule and completely wrong on the court. I can't imagine this being a technical foul, ever.

But hey, if we all agreed on this kind of thing there'd be little need for forums like this.

Adam Sun Dec 14, 2008 04:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 558057)
I gotta say, I think this is one case where you could be completely correct in the rule and completely wrong on the court. I can't imagine this being a technical foul, ever.

But hey, if we all agreed on this kind of thing there'd be little need for forums like this.

I actually agree with you, mostly; but it depends on how close she was to the end line. If this happens at the half court line, and A1 is the nearest of her team to the ball; hard not to call it a T. I don't think it would be a hard sell, either.

Rich Sun Dec 14, 2008 04:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 558066)
I actually agree with you, mostly; but it depends on how close she was to the end line. If this happens at the half court line, and A1 is the nearest of her team to the ball; hard not to call it a T. I don't think it would be a hard sell, either.

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

Back In The Saddle Sun Dec 14, 2008 04:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 558057)
I gotta say, I think this is one case where you could be completely correct in the rule and completely wrong on the court. I can't imagine this being a technical foul, ever.

But hey, if we all agreed on this kind of thing there'd be little need for forums like this.

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.

Skarecrow Sun Dec 14, 2008 04:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 558042)
The trail is the only one who knows if the count had started yet. If the L calls the foul, it's up to the T to make sure it's the proper type (pesonal or technical).

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?

Rich Sun Dec 14, 2008 05:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 558073)
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.

Skarecrow Sun Dec 14, 2008 05:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 558079)
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?

just another ref Sun Dec 14, 2008 06:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 558066)
I actually agree with you, mostly; but it depends on how close she was to the end line. If this happens at the half court line, and A1 is the nearest of her team to the ball; hard not to call it a T.


What does this have to do with it?

just another ref Sun Dec 14, 2008 06:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 558082)
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?

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

Skarecrow Sun Dec 14, 2008 06:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558095)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 06:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 558099)
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.

Quote:

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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 06:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558102)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 06:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 558103)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 07:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 558103)
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.

BillyMac Sun Dec 14, 2008 07:27pm

"Ute" means people of the mountains ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558102)
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.

Skarecrow Sun Dec 14, 2008 07:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558109)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 08:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558109)
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.

Adam Sun Dec 14, 2008 08:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558093)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 08:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 558121)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558131)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:58pm

4.19.8.C: The Case Of The Infamous Blarge ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 558175)
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 Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 558175)
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 Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558131)
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 Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:08am

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!!!! :D

youngump Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 558187)
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 Mon Dec 15, 2008 01:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 558354)
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 Mon Dec 15, 2008 01:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 558354)
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 Mon Dec 15, 2008 01:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 558354)
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 Mon Dec 15, 2008 02:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 558376)
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 Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 558367)
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 Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:39pm

I really don't care about Blarges.....
 
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 Tue Dec 16, 2008 04:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 558684)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1