blarge- POI or AP

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But if I come up with block, and my partner comes up with charge, we've got ourselves a blarge.

No, you've got yourself a conference where one of you two is going to be a grown up, defer the call, and get a single call because it can't really be both a block and a charge. You are absolutely NOT going to both insist your call is right and not back down. If a crew cant get together and get this right, that is just lame.

[ocreferee]

Originally Posted by cdaref

No, you've got yourself a conference where one of you two is going to be a grown up, defer the call, and get a single call because it can't really be both a block and a charge. You are absolutely NOT going to both insist your call is right and not back down. If a crew cant get together and get this right, that is just lame.

In NCAA women's you are correct. We get together and go with the primary officials call. In NFHS and NCAA men's it has to be a double foul.
NFHS case 4.19.8 Situation C

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

No, you've got yourself a conference where one of you two is going to be a grown up, defer the call, and get a single call because it can't really be both a block and a charge. You are absolutely NOT going to both insist your call is right and not back down. If a crew cant get together and get this right, that is just lame.

The rule is if both officials give preliminary signals, you cannot defer (in spite of what jar says above) to your partner. In NFHS and NCAA-M, being a grown up means going by the prescribed mechanic and calling the double foul.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule is if both officials give preliminary signals, you cannot defer (in spite of what jar says above) to your partner. In NFHS and NCAA-M, being a grown up means going by the prescribed mechanic and calling the double foul.

I'm sure at our "get together" either I or my partner will learn that the other had the better look. A preliminary signal is no more a binding irreversible ruling than an out of bounds call.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I'm sure at our "get together" either I or my partner will learn that the other had the better look. A preliminary signal is no more a binding irreversible ruling than an out of bounds call.

Ummm...then you will be kicking a rule.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule is if both officials give preliminary signals, you cannot defer (in spite of what jar says above) to your partner. In NFHS and NCAA-M, being a grown up means going by the prescribed mechanic and calling the double foul.

Of course you can defer. There is no such thing as a binding irreversible signal. The only call that counts is the one reported to the table. Find me a rule that says a preliminary signal is binding and irreversible. You can't. There isnt one.

If preliminary signals now are binding and non-reversible, what do you do with the jump/foul double whistle or the out of bounds call that your partner comes over and tells you there was a tip. I guess we shoot the free throw for the foul then go to the AP arrow for the jump? Uh, no. Or we tell the coach, "sorry coach, I know my partner saw the tip, but I pointed to blue and that signal is irreversible." No.

This idea of an irreversible preliminary signal is absurd.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by cdaref

Of course you can defer. There is no such thing as a binding irreversible signal. The only call that counts is the one reported to the table. Find me a rule that says a preliminary signal is binding and irreversible. You can't. There isnt one.

If preliminary signals now are binding and non-reversible, what do you do with the jump/foul double whistle or the out of bounds call that your partner comes over and tells you there was a tip. I guess we shoot the free throw for the foul then go to the AP arrow for the jump? Uh, no. Or we tell the coach, "sorry coach, I know my partner saw the tip, but I pointed to blue and that signal is irreversible." No.

This idea of an irreversible preliminary signal is absurd.

Then please explain 4.19.8 Sit. C.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Then please explain 4.19.8 Sit. C.

I can't explain it.

BUT I can say that it does not mandate that preliminary signals are irreversible. I think the only way to understand 4.19.8(C) is to think of the situation where both officials steadfastly insist their call is correct and there is no other way to resolve it. Otherwise it doesnt make sense.

What I refuse to do is read into an already whacky case play an even whackier new RULE: that preliminary signals now are mandatory and unchangable and there cannot be any deferring. I dont think 4.19.8(C) dictates that.

[cdaref]

Even the official's manual calls the signal on the floor a "preliminary signal."

2.4.2(B)(4): "lower the foul signal [fist] and indicate the nature of the foul by giving a preliminary signal."

THEN

2.4.2(C)(2): "If the situation necesitates a discussion with the other officials, have the discussion before reporting to the table so that the correct call and information is conveyed to the table."

That right there says after the preliminary signal the officials can get together and discuss the call to make sure the CORRECT CALL is made.

[cdaref]

Of course, 2.4.8 which talks about double whistles also says the officials should get together to "determine the correct call" and that the decision on the final call should be left to the primary area official.

So I just dont see any rule support for this idea that preliminary signals are irrevocable and unchangable. In fact, the manuals are to teh contrary--officials should get together and make changes as needed to make sure the call reported to the table is correct.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I can't explain it.

BUT I can say that it does not mandate that preliminary signals are irreversible. I think the only way to understand 4.19.8(C) is to think of the situation where both officials steadfastly insist their call is correct and there is no other way to resolve it. Otherwise it doesnt make sense.

What I refuse to do is read into an already whacky case play an even whackier new RULE: that preliminary signals now are mandatory and unchangable and there cannot be any deferring. I dont think 4.19.8(C) dictates that.

Then you're reading this case play differently than virtually every high school and college assigner and rules interpreter I've ever heard, read, or seen. If that was their intent, they'd have written the case play like the NCAAW, telling the officials to get together and make a decision.

This is the only case where the prelims become binding, and the reasoning is simple even if it is "suspect."

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then you're reading this case play differently than virtually every high school and college assigner and rules interpreter I've ever heard, read, or seen. If that was their intent, they'd have written the case play like the NCAAW, telling the officials to get together and make a decision.

This is the only case where the prelims become binding, and the reasoning is simple even if it is "suspect."

Snaq, if that is true, then I have to be wrong. I dont believe I am. I think my reading makes more sense. But I dont have your experience on this. I certainly cant say I have any idea how "virtually every high school and college assigner and rules interpreter" interprets this. If you and CR and others say I'm wrong, what choice do I have but to concede. I've stated the way I read it and why, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I cant challenge your guys' experience with how it is called across the country.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by cdaref

I can't explain it.

BUT I can say that it does not mandate that preliminary signals are irreversible. I think the only way to understand 4.19.8(C) is to think of the situation where both officials steadfastly insist their call is correct and there is no other way to resolve it. Otherwise it doesnt make sense.

What I refuse to do is read into an already whacky case play an even whackier new RULE: that preliminary signals now are mandatory and unchangable and there cannot be any deferring. I dont think 4.19.8(C) dictates that.

Well, it does dictate that in this ONE situation. It is not about insisting one is correct or who had a "better" look. Both officials saw what they felt was good enough to blow the whistle but they disagreed. For them to even come to differnet conclusions implies that it was a pretty close call. For one to change/defer means that one official effectively overrules the other. You also can't decide which happened first because it is the same act.

Like it or not, NCAA-M and NFHS say that once the officials signal with opposite calls in a block/charge, it is too late for either to change...with an exception for being in the restricted area.

[cdaref]

If that's true, then I am wrong. I can live with that. I will continue to pregame holding signals to stay out of the blarge nightmare. Because even if I am right, having two officials with two different calls and signals is a pregameable and avoidable situation.

[cdaref]

I will concede, of course, that I have no freaking clue how 4.19.8(C) can be possible with just A1 and B1. I could see, perhaps, A1 charges into B1, while at the exact same time secondary defender B2 blocks A1.