blarge- POI or AP

[RefItUp]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

A blarge in High School is a Double foul. In college women you get together and discuss and decide on a call.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefItUp

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.

[just another ref]

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.