![]() |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Agreed, you must judge whether this was intentional or just dumb. Talk to dumb, penalize intentional, but do something with this.
|
Quote:
In the real world, it would probably be called a personal foul, right or wrong. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
This is more than enough time to consider this ball available. The ball is live. Call it a personal foul. |
Had partner started the count? Would that make a difference?
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
One does not cause the other, but both should begin, by rule, at the exact same moment. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you called the foul, I would say it's yours. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The Beehive State ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But the blarge is completely irrelevant to the OP.
|
Quote:
|
In A Perfect World, In An Imperfect world ???
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
may/must report both fouls. Sounds eerily similar to me. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You are twisting a simple situation into something that it isn't. That concept is not applicable here. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Has Anyone Actually Seen The Infamous Blarge ???
Quote:
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) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But hey, if we all agreed on this kind of thing there'd be little need for forums like this. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What does this have to do with it? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
"Ute" means people of the mountains ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
________ LIVE SEX |
4.19.8.C: The Case Of The Infamous Blarge ???
Quote:
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) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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. |