blarge- POI or AP
 

thought it was AP then had someone mention to me about it being POI. Does it matter if the shot is released?

never had one and if I do I probably will say my whistle was louder therefor it is my call.

Up until last year (I think it was last year) it was AP. However, it was changed to POI. That said, POI could be AP under certain circumstances (try released but unsuccessful, throwin over but no team control).

Isn't a blarge a double foul? Isn't a double foul always POI? Isn't POI sometimes AP?

Rule 4 is a rule we should know inside and out. Once you know the definitions the other rules all fall into place

SECTION 36 POINT OF INTERRUPTION
ART. 1 . . . Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an
interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal,
double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10.
ART. 2…Play shall be resumed by one of the following methods:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the
ball was located when the interruption occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this
activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when neither team is in control and no
goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved when the game
is interrupted.

NOw if it is a blarge.... you need to know if there was team control at the time of the foul? .....

No matter what kind of double foul, you'll usually need to know if there's team control.

Blarge
 

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

That a good way to put it.....LOL......

Can you imagine a world without hypothetical questions?

I think if you're going to call a college woman, you'd better be careful and make sure she's at least 18! Also, it's a good idea to pick one who's not pre-law. ;)

Could we ask rhetorical questions instead?

A college student whom is "pre-law" is about the equivalent of a 2nd LT with a map and a compass. :D

Yes, but everyone will not understand it that way.

Peace

Theoretically, yes.

hypothetically no

And can get you in about the same amount of trouble. :eek:

Pardon my TOTAL ignorance but I am new here LOL:

I assume POI means point of infraction...

And AP means alternating possession...

But WTF is a "blarge"? ROFLMFAO!!!

Close... POI = Point Of Interruption

Yes... AP = Alternating Possession

Blarge = Block Charge

In more detail, a "Blarge" is when one official calls a block on a play and the other official calls a charge. Both come up with a definite preliminary signal. Let the fun begin. ;)

Nothing ever written says preliminary signal, definite or otherwise, = a call.

Are we having fun yet?

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.

If you both made a call, and each of you thinks his call was undeniably right and you each wish to stick with it at all cost, then without a doubt you have a blarge. This is spelled out in the now famous case 4.19.8 Situation C, even though I could never have come to this conclusion by reading the rule book. But there is nothing in this case which says that a preliminary signal is binding in making this call.

We had this debate before. IIRC, you were alone in your view that officials' preliminary signals did not constitute a "call" for the purpose of enforcing the "blarge rule."

The majority view was, as BITS suggests, that a prelim signal constitutes a call. You can't unring the bell.

Totally Wrong Adjective ...
 

It's the infamous 4.19.8 Situation C.

Let's not forget the world's worst blarge--when called by one official: one hand behind head in a player control signal and the other on hip in a partial block signal.

I've never seen it, but I've heard it has happened.

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.

I had a cchhaarrggee once!

By the way, BITS, I presume you are speaking in the hypothetical that that is the way to actually get a blarge. I hope you will agree that in any crew you work that is not actually ever going to happen, despite its hypothetical possibility. :)

I've seen it happen to some very good officials, so I won't presume to declare it'll never happen to me. Even if I ever actually get good at it.

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

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 still trying to figure out if you actually believe they wrote a case play for two officials who are beligerently sticking to their calls even after getting together.

Or did they write it for the situation when two officials report their fouls in complete ignorance of each other?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is not a double foul, that is a simultaneous foul.

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."

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.

The reason this case exists, in my opinion, is because the officials failed to follow the proper mechanics by both signaling a different foul. The proper mechanic is for the primary official only to make the call, or if there is a possibility of a double whistle, then neither official makes a signal until they've made eye contact, or even gotten together, and have one official come out with the call. Because that did not happen, the Fed. has specified that both fouls shall be reported.

It has nothing to do with "how can there be a player-control and blocking foul on the same play?", or "preliminary signals are all binding". It has to do with those officials not following the proper procedure in a certain instance, so there is a specific way to handle that instance. That also happens in the correctable error section, and the other thread where we're discussing definite information in whether to put time back on the clock. In every one of these situations, the common thread is an official's error (floor officials and/or table crew). And, in each case, we can argue all day long whether we think the ruling is "fair" or proper, but in every case we don't get to make that decision; we can only follow the rules. And, in every case, the best way to avoid having to make any of those rulings is for the officials to follow proper mechanics and procedures.

In the Official's Manual, in the pregame they print in the back, it mentions "double whistles with different calls" in the "Communication" section of the pregame--along with the help calls, like tips, out of bounds, 3 vs 2 pointer, etc. If they meant double whistles with different calls to mean double fouls, then why put it in the Communications part. If the calls are irreversible, there is nothing to change or talk about, just both go over and report both fouls and have a double foul.

M&M, I hear you. The problem only arises when the non-primary official not only comes up with a fist but also makes a signal that is different from what the other official has.

But why does that mean we cant get together?

If you are right and the two different signals means you have to have a double foul, then what do you do when someone calls out of bounds when its not their area and indicates Home ball when the primary indicates Visitor. I've seen that more (at lower levels with ball watching) than I've seen a blarge. If you have to have a double foul just because two officials gave different signals and you cant get together and figure it out, then what permits us to do it with out of bounds plays?

I think we have to read that wierd case play in its narrowest form that does the least damage to the rest of the established rules. That is how you do statutory construction in the law.

The only sane way to read 4.19.8(C) in my opinion is to read it as follows: both officials have different calls (admittedly, this shouldnt happen, off primary should hold his call even if he has a double whistle) and there is no way to reconcile which call takes precedence. In that situation, and that situation alone, it is a double foul. Nothing about it should be read to say we cant get together, like the Official's Manual says, share information, and conclude "you are right, you had the better angle, B1 was still moving and wasnt set, your look was better than mine, we are going block."

Your interpretation does violence to the plain language of the case. You've twisted it so that it agrees with you.

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.

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.

They don't write case plays for wreck league and middle school officials, which is the only time you should ever see two whistles on an OOB play (except maybe on a play in the corner), so this won't ever get addressed. That also means they aren't writing this for the two stubborn officials who refuse to get together to figure it out.

The narrow reading of this, in plain language, leads to the very simple conclusion that this is the only time prelims are binding. It doesn't "damage" any other rules, in that it has a very limited application as spelled out in the case play.

Snaq, come on. I saw it Friday. I'm waiting for my varsity game with my 3 man crew watching the JV officials work 2 man. That exact thing happened. Primary whistled and indicated one way, older official who had been away from officiating and just came back this year and is a bit rusty was ball watching and indicated the other direction. Yes, we talked about it at half time with them in the locker room.

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.

I wonder what Nevada would say on this ;)

That's exactly my point, though. You should never see it even in a JV game. The only reason you did was because the rusty one lost his head for a moment. Blarges happen in college with very good officials, they happen in HS varsity games with very good officials. I know officials who have confessed to blarges who work championship games. I would venture to guess you'll never see good HS varsity officials have a double whistle on a boundary line. I'd bet money you'll never see it in college.

I've never had one, but I've been lucky. One of my first varsity games in CO I hit the whistle and went straight for the charge. My partner had a whistle and held his prelim, but he had a block (we talked later). It was backcourt in transition, I was C and he was new T.

Last season in a 3-man JV game, I had a PC from C. I turned to report it and noticed the L had vacated so I moved to administer the throwin. He took C and went downcourt. At the next quarter, the other official informed us that we had both called and reported the foul without knowing it.

Opposing block/charge prelims is a specific exception in the rule book, just like there are specific exceptions for backcourt violations on throws-in.

I'm going to see what my commish has to say on this one. I have a funny feeling he will say: "get together, it cant be both so make one call not some cheesy double foul, and then figure out which one of you two knuckleheads should have held his preliminary signal and dont do that again." But then again, he's a common sense guy :)

Rec League commish: "pick one foul and go with it"

HS or college supervisor: "report the blarge and never let it happen again"

I put a caveat in there. "That I've heard, read, or seen." :) It says nothing of the depth of my experience. ;)

Fair enough. :)

Situation: A makes a drive to the basket, jumps and releases the shot. Two whistles sound. Two fists go up. L appears to make the pc signal. C appears to make the block signal. C and L make brief eye contact. C reports the foul and they line up to shoot.

Coach B: But, wait! What did he call?

Nearest official: (shrugs) Nothing, I guess.


end of story

You skipped part of the story:

The big difference between the blarge and all OTHER conflicting opinions or "calls" is that the others have a clearly defined sole responsibility (line coverage), the two calls are not different opinions of the same contact, or one official has a call and the other has a no-call. All of these are easily resolved by defering to the official who has sole responsibility for the line or determining which of the two acts occurred first. As for the blarge, there are primaries and secondaries involved (even double coverage areas), not exclusive areas. The positions at which they occur can be in a spot where it could be considered either official's primary. Defering to one official over the other has about a 50% chance of being right.

NFHS Rules:
Once two officials give conflicting foul signals on such a play, then the crew MUST go with a double personal foul and resume at the POI per Case Book 4.19.8 Situation C.

But, as we all know from our reading, this is paraphrased. The word signal does not appear in the above mentioned case. Neither does the word must.

I have a new question on this subject. Double whistle. Neither official gives a preliminary signal, but they have opposite opinions of the play. Each is positive that he is correct. Is it ok to go with a blarge if this happens?

But the tape also shows that the block was the correct call, so it would have been a shame had that player needlessly been charged with a foul.



There were not two calls. L made the PC signal by mistake.

JAR: you don't have to change your mind, but you're not convincing anyone.

Everyone else: you're not convincing JAR.

We don't need to rehash this.

Blocks and charges (player control) get preliminary signals at the spot of the foul according to the NFHS manual, I believe (don't have it with me). So I'm thinking this case play was written with that in mind.

I just don't understand the resistance to following what the NHFS wants in this specific situation. NCAA-M have the rule/case written the same as NFHS. NCAA-W has written the rule specifically to go with the call of the primary official. Why can't we just accept that we should call it the way the respective governing bodies want to us to call it?

I'm still curious as to which reasoning you think the committee had when writing this case play.
1. Was it written for the beligerent a$$es who won't concede to one another.
2. Was it written for the odd case where both officials report their respective fouls without knowing about the other?

I mentioned my theory - the committee wants to make correcting an official's screw-up onerous enough that officials will be less likely to do it again.

On this particular play, I think it's because B/C calls are tense enough anyway; giving prelims for both sides is just asking for trouble when you retract one. Just think about the time you gave the wrong prelim and went with the other call; now imagine the blarge situation and the reaction from the coach who gets the short end of this call.

I think your theory has merit, too, and may have factored into it.

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

I posted it somewhere at least once before. The first time this case was brought to my attention, I thought the whole point was to emphasize that the shot could count since the foul by the offense was not a player control foul due to the fact that it was a part of a double foul. But, I went on to wonder, if this was their intent, why would they not make the case something which could actually happen:

B1 reaches across and whacks A1 on the arm while A1 simultaneously pushes off with the other arm.

I am assured by most that this was not the intent. So, what was it? To call attention to the fact that one official got a call wrong, and subsequently make that wrong call stand rather than give the officials a chance to decide which call was right? Furthermore, the idea that the whole deal hinges on the preliminary signals would never have occurred to me.

So, while we're on the subject........

I have asked this before, but I don't recall ever getting an answer.

Play in your primary. Contact. You have an obvious blocking foul call. You go up with a fist, but hearing your partner's whistle, hold the prelim signal.
Partner comes in, emphatically making his PC signal.

What do you do?

A coach who tends to be reactive tends to have a big reaction to getting the short end of this call whether another signal was made or not.

Picture this. Had this call twice tonight. BV Kid drives hard to the basket, makes some kind of little stutter step move, travels, then gets clobbered by the defense. I called the travel both times. Pretty good reaction from the coach and the fans. Suppose my partner had reached out and whistled the foul on this play? Bigger reaction from the coach probably.

Partner: My bad, Coach. His call, not mine.

And we move on.

Let him have the call and then have a very lengthy post-game.

Play in your primary. Defender flops. No contact at all. Partner blows whistle and comes in, emphatically making his PC signal. What do you do?

Same answer to both plays.

Same thing my partner did to me in the one of my first varsity games: let him have the call and discuss later.

I knew immediately that we'd talk about it later. He was a great partner (I've moved since) and teacher.

Thanks ...
 

Snaqwells: Thanks for the compliment, but I don't remember the play.

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.