Blarge administration

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Actually, I think a majority of double-whistles are what two officials think about one event. It's just that most of the time the officials agree, and only one takes the call to the table. It's just what happens when they disagree, and show different signals, that's the issue.

Agree.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Good example - what do you do if your partner comes over to you and tells you there was no contact on the foul you just called? One of you is right, and one of you is wrong - different opinions on the same play.

Nothing....because a non-call is not a call...we don't call non-infractions. If an official calls a foul, it is a foul. Unless the other official has a different infraction that precedes it, there is nothing for them to add.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The reason for the NFHS blarge ruling is because the officials were wrong by not following the proper mechanics. Same issue - wrong mechanics - but different procedures and different results. That's been my point.

One final thing to consider.....mechanics are not rules.....and are not even close to rules. They are just a framework established in order to best administer the rules. Not following a mechanic doesn't change the fact that an official saw and called an infraction.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your example of an official indicating a 2 pointer is already wrong as there is no such mechanic or signal that is to be made on a two point bucket.

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

As an aside: Here in the Constitution State we do have our own "Connecticut Only IAABO" mechanic: Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

As an aside: Here in the Constitution State we do have our own "Connecticut Only IAABO" mechanic: Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.

Connecticut only???

Anybody in Connecticut or IAABO ever read case book play 2.7.8? Specifically, the part that says "Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for a two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in case of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded."

That is how/when we're supposed to signal made 2-point goals. That makes the IABBO mechanic redundant imo.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

Not quite. The lack of any official signalling a 3 is the signal it is a 2. The lack of any one official signaling a 3 is nothing....unless you're saying the lead should also be signaling 3's at the top of the key.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Connecticut only??? Anybody in Connecticut or IAABO ever read case book play 2.7.8? Specifically, the part that says "Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for a two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in case of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded."

2.7.8 SITUATION: During the course of the game, the officials: (a) do not signal successful two-point field goals or free throws; or (b) do signal the value of point(s) resulting from defensive goaltending or basket interference. RULING: This is proper procedure. Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in cases of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded. Officials shall also continue to signal a successful three-point goal.

This casebook play seems to describe the signaling of a successful two point or a successful three point try. Here in Connecticut we signal a two point try attempt where the shooter has a foot on the line by pointing to the three point line.

Remember back in the twentieth century when we signaled all successful two point or successful one point trys by indicating the number of points with two fingers or one finger?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you're saying the lead should also be signaling 3's at the top of the key.

You're right. I should have said, "from your primary coverage area".

Of course there is always that "gray area" in a two person game, the foul line extended on the lead's side.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This casebook play seems to describe the signaling of a successful two point or a successful three point try. Here in Connecticut we signal a two point try attempt where the shooter has a foot on the line by pointing to the three point line.

And that's why I amended my post to say that having us signal a 2-point goal in case of doubt or confusion makes that IAABO mechanic redundant.

[kayjay77]

Originally Posted by Rich

I never thought it was hard until a partner and I had a blarge last season in a juco mens game. 23 years and it was a first. Hopefully, it will be the only one.

I was the lead and the foul happened right in front of me in the lower half of the center of the lane. Not sure why the T jumped in on it, to be honest -- it was a no-brainer block, too, as a secondary defender slid under an airborne shooter. Partner sold it so poorly I didn't even realize he had called anything until it was too late. I'm not sure I would've ceded to his charge call had I seen it -- it was the wrong call made by the wrong official -- why should he get that wrong call to stick just cause he's quicker to the gun? The C came to me during a timeout and told me it was probably the easiest block to call and somehow the T got it wrong.

In an NCAAW game, I would've been able to have the right call (a block), but I actually liked how the rule tied my hands and left both coaches grumbly rather than one happy and the other seething. After a quick explanation, we had the ball back in play and the whole thing quickly forgotten. Till the locker room, of course.

I think I like the NCAAW's procedure better, let the person who's primary is take the call and move on. I also had one a year ago. I was "C" and the Lead called a block. I was half way to the other end and the coach stopped me and said he called a block. I had already reported so sad to say, I used the women's mechanic, I reported my foul so let's move on. The coaches agreed it was a charge.

[bob jenkins]

Nearly eight years is a long time wait to make a comment.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Don't get me started on "blarges"!

MTD, Sr.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

When are NCAAM and the NFHS going to follow the NCAAW and not allow a change to be called? The two calling officials must get together and decide whos call it is and make one call. Make one coach mad...not two.

I would agree, but then the NBA would have to follow suit as well. In FIBA, 2 fouls are charged, but the shot does not count, due to one foul being a player control foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I would agree, but then the NBA would have to follow suit as well. In FIBA, 2 fouls are charged, but the shot does not count, due to one foul being a player control foul.

Well this was suggested 8 years ago. Let me let you in on a little secret. NCAA Men's basketball does not care about NCAA Women's rules. If they had they would have changed that long time ago.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think that is a dumb mechanic and I seriously doubt that the Men's side is going to change that. It is easy to avoid if you do the right things. But to have both officials call something and only pick one in that case is just silly. I would never advocate that mechanic. And if officials would just raise their hand we would not have to worry about this.

Peace

I'd bet good money that THIS is the reason why J.D. Collins cares so much about officials stopping the clock on all fouls and violations (He said so in the 2017-18 NCAA men's basketball mechanics video on YouTube, and the men's CCA manual has written instructions that stopping the clock (with open hand or fist) is required on ALL fouls and violations). If an official posts a fist, he can look for another fist or hand. For example, the Big 12 All-Access video showed a play in the Baylor-OU game where James Breeding, the L, raised his fist to call a charge by Quincy Acy of Baylor, but saw that Joe DeRosa, the T, had a different foul on Oklahoma 21, and wisely held off, because the foul by 21 caused Acy to charge.

Officials can come together if both raise a fist, but once the block and charge are both signalled, in NCAAM or NFHS rules, the calls cannot be withdrawn. This, therefore, is a situation where an ounce of prevention (using proper signals to stop the clock and scanning the floor before making a preliminary signal) is worth a pound of cure (enforcing both fouls).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... stopping the clock (with open hand or fist) is required on ALL fouls and violations). If an official posts a fist, he can look for another fist or hand .. an ounce of prevention (using proper signals to stop the clock ...

Good point. IAABO international, state, and local, have been telling us (with international observers criticizing our guys in our state tournament) for years to always use one of the three stop the clock signals, and telling us, and telling us, and telling us. They never bothered to tell us why. This is a good rationale. It's really not about stopping the clock, is it?

Of course officials can argue about the real need for the stop the clock signal for out of bounds plays, but that's another story for another time.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I'd bet good money that THIS is the reason why J.D. Collins cares so much about officials stopping the clock on all fouls and violations (He said so in the 2017-18 NCAA men's basketball mechanics video on YouTube, and the men's CCA manual has written instructions that stopping the clock (with open hand or fist) is required on ALL fouls and violations). If an official posts a fist, he can look for another fist or hand. For example, the Big 12 All-Access video showed a play in the Baylor-OU game where James Breeding, the L, raised his fist to call a charge by Quincy Acy of Baylor, but saw that Joe DeRosa, the T, had a different foul on Oklahoma 21, and wisely held off, because the foul by 21 caused Acy to charge.

Officials can come together if both raise a fist, but once the block and charge are both signalled, in NCAAM or NFHS rules, the calls cannot be withdrawn. This, therefore, is a situation where an ounce of prevention (using proper signals to stop the clock and scanning the floor before making a preliminary signal) is worth a pound of cure (enforcing both fouls).

You might be the first person on this forum to talk to veteran posters like they've never officiated anything above wreck league ball.