Okay, I have said from the start that the words call and signal were not interchangeable. Many have said for the purposes of this case they are intended to be. A fist in the air is still a signal. You signaled (called?)
a foul, but it's okay to yield to your partner here just because he gave a prelim, which you believe to be wrong, and you gave none?

It's not only okay, it's advisable.

And we are saying that in this very specific play (opposing prelims given by two officials) is the only time where the prelims are binding; and only because of the case play.

1. I have not spoken with an assigner, rules interpreter, or even just a veteran official who reads this differently.

2. It doesn't make sense to think they wrote a case play to enable two beligerent referees who refused to yield. If they wanted it done the way the college women do it, they'd have worded the case play the same way.

Maybe one?:cool:

Maybe not, but it also doesn't make sense to think that they wrote a play which makes one of these refs stick with a wrong call even if he realizes it after the fact.

Again, here's my theory, fwiw: Having two officials call/signal/premliniary signal is a bad mechanic, especially in the case of the block/charge call. My feeling is the rules committee wants to make the solution to a bad mechanic situation as un-palatable as possible, while still being kinda fair, so it gives the officials an incentive to do it right the first time. If the proper mechanics are followed, such as no quick preliminary signals, and yield to the official whose primary the call is in, the need for this rule will never come into play.

You are arguing with the wrong people on this. In fact, you have now also earned my "Tilting at Windmills" Award (which I usually reserve for Snaqs):
http://www.hope.edu/dining/catering/...s/windmill.jpg

I agree the "best" method is the NCAA-W method, which is the 2 officials come together and figure out whose primary the call should come from, and go with one call. But we do not get that option in NFHS, no matter how hard you try to fit it in to your logic. It is straight forward, in black-and-white, and in the case of the blarge only. If you want to lobby the rules committee to change it, I'll be one of the first to sign your petition. In the meantime, rulz is rulz.

Kinda thought that's what I was doing. There is evidence that the committee has visited this board, is there not?

Ohhhh...that's what you're doing. I thought you were just trying to be annoying. :cool: :D

Hey, I behaved myself when the topic just came up.

Some things can be done without trying.

I just completed our class and the suggestion was that if you have a blarge, you must result in a double foul. Yes, both coaches are going to complain, but it seems logical to go that route. From there, it indeed is deemed by the Point-of-Interruption.

Just my two cents.

This is because of the case play, and it's a lot easier to go to the coaches and say, "Coach, the rule is on this play we have to go with a double foul" than to go to one coach and explain why he lost out on what looks like an overruled call.

Plus, if that coach knows the rule, you'll have an even more difficult time getting him to understand why he's getting screwed.

Ironically, we sorta had one of these tonight. BV two whistle I was lead. A1 driving to the basket down the far side of the lane. I called a blocking foul, and went to report it. Partner had switched and was already on the end line holding the ball by the time I had finished. Coach B asked what I had called. I said blocking on 21. He said "What did y'all do, flip a coin?" About this time somebody in the stands yelled "He called offense." We moved on.

After the game partner told me had indeed blown his whistle and made the PC signal, but when he saw my hand up he immediately deferred because he thought I had the best look. The contact he saw was the dribbler clearing out with the inside arm, and I'm still not sure, but I think his whistle was first. With the benefit of instant replay, I think we would have gone with his call, but he made the decision to give up his call, and it turned out not to be a big deal.

So, my question now is, this was not a true blarge, but we did make conflicting preliminary signals, so do you hardliners say this had to be a double foul or not?

Yes, IMO, you should have went with the double foul.

Could it be that the issue for you is definitional? Perhaps you're defining a "true blarge" as one that really is both a block and PC foul. The applicable case doesn't define 'blarge' explicitly, but implicitly defines it in terms of what the officials call.

Perhaps your objection is that too many "notional blarges" end up being treated as "true blarges" by following the procedure of the case play.

The foul I called was based on torso to torso contact. The foul that he signaled, but then didn't call, was not. I'm reasonably certain that what we had was not a double foul, but one contact followed by the other. I do believe that his contact came first, and had I known then what I know now, I think we should have gone with his call, but he chose to vacate.

Our play had significant differences from the case play. The point of the question was whether some think that the opposing preliminary signals aspect is broad enough to cover this situation as well. I, obviously, do not.