Blarge administration

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron, before I take the time to reply to your other statements, you still have not answered my question about other double-whistle situations: How should officials handle ANY double-whistle? How about when they each have a different call? Perhaps one has a violation, while the other has a foul, or each official has a foul on a different player; whose call is it? Perhaps the players are straddling the two primaries, as you mention above - you tell me: whose call is it?

See post #39 Blarge administration

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

See post #39 Blarge administration

That post doesn't answer the question at all.

Again, what is your procedure for a double-whistle, not involving a blarge?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Easy...ALL other double whistles involve TWO different events. You decided which happened first and penalize accordingly. The blarge is ONE single event....neither could happen before the other....with two different opinions about what happened. It is a matter of deciding which person is right...or not.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That post doesn't answer the question at all.

Again, what is your procedure for a double-whistle, not involving a blarge?

It exactly answers it. See the red text in the quote above. The officials decide which infraction happened first, not who is right. Neither official overrides the other. The second official is still "correct" but the call is not relevant as the ball was already dead (usually).

[jritchie]

It happens in D-1 more because they are trying to look good first and not worry about proper mechanics! I'm with Rut, if they would do what they are taught, it wouldn't happen nearly as much as it has been.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It exactly answers it. See the red text in the quote above. The officials decide which infraction happened first, not who is right. Neither official overrides the other. The second official is still "correct" but the call is not relevant as the ball was already dead (usually).

And, if it involves two differnet fouls and they can't decide which occurred first, it becomes a simultaneous foul and both are penalized...and you go to the POI..sort of like a doulbe foul. Hmmm.

[M&M Guy]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;694880]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Easy...ALL other double whistles involve TWO different events. You decided which happened first and penalize accordingly. The blarge is ONE single event....neither could happen before the other....with two different opinions about what happened. It is a matter of deciding which person is right...or not.



It exactly answers it. See the red text in the quote above. The officials decide which infraction happened first, not who is right. Neither official overrides the other. The second official is still "correct" but the call is not relevant as the ball was already dead (usually).

Now I can turn around and ask you the same questions you asked about the NCAA-W procedure - how would you be sure ego would not be involved in who takes the call? How do both officials actually agree which happened first, when they have seen, and signaled, two different things? How can you be absolutely certain the call that's finally made is the correct call, and that one team didn't get hosed?

My point is, every objection you've given to the NCAA-W procedure can be used here. In other words, it's the officials' job to determine which event happened first, and then to make the correct call, not based on ego, or whether there was one foot in someone's primary, etc. That has been, and always will be, the procedure for a double whistle, where two officials have a different view of the same play.

What bothers me about the blarge rule is the fact this one particular double-whistle is treated differently. You cannot, by all of the applicable rules involving contact, have both a player-control and a defensive foul happen at exactly the same time. It's one or the other. Unfortunately, one official is wrong in their assessment of the play. The same thing can be said about the foul/travel situation - if the foul happend first and caused the travel, the official that signaled the violation would be wrong, since no travel violation can occur when the ball is dead. So, one official would have to "overrule" another to get the call correct. It happens. You wouldn't call both in that situation, so likewise, you shouldn't call both in a block/charge.

Again, the two officials would get together and make the correct call in any other double-whistle situation. In this case, their hands are tied and one team will be charged with a foul that they didn't otherwise deserve, only because the officials didn't do their job properly. In NCAA-W, the two officials get to come together to get the call correct, instead of charging one team with a foul they didn't earn or deserve, simply due to officials not following proper mechanics.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=M&M Guy;694899]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Now I can turn around and ask you the same questions you asked about the NCAA-W procedure - how would you be sure ego would not be involved in who takes the call? How do both officials actually agree which happened first, when they have seen, and signaled, two different things? How can you be absolutely certain the call that's finally made is the correct call, and that one team didn't get hosed?

My point is, every objection you've given to the NCAA-W procedure can be used here. In other words, it's the officials' job to determine which event happened first, and then to make the correct call, not based on ego, or whether there was one foot in someone's primary, etc. That has been, and always will be, the procedure for a double whistle, where two officials have a different view of the same play.

What bothers me about the blarge rule is the fact this one particular double-whistle is treated differently. You cannot, by all of the applicable rules involving contact, have both a player-control and a defensive foul happen at exactly the same time. It's one or the other. Unfortunately, one official is wrong in their assessment of the play. The same thing can be said about the foul/travel situation - if the foul happend first and caused the travel, the official that signaled the violation would be wrong, since no travel violation can occur when the ball is dead. So, one official would have to "overrule" another to get the call correct. It happens. You wouldn't call both in that situation, so likewise, you shouldn't call both in a block/charge.

Again, the two officials would get together and make the correct call in any other double-whistle situation. In this case, their hands are tied and one team will be charged with a foul that they didn't otherwise deserve, only because the officials didn't do their job properly. In NCAA-W, the two officials get to come together to get the call correct, instead of charging one team with a foul they didn't earn or deserve, simply due to officials not following proper mechanics.

You were doing fine until the red high-lighted statement. There is still no guarantee under Wimmens rules that you ARE going to get the call CORRECT. All you are doing is agreeing on the call, correct or not. It's a problem under ALL rulesets with double whistles. The only person that really knows whether the call is correct or not is maybe someone who is evaluating the game. And even then, that conclusion is subjective.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now I can turn around and ask you the same questions you asked about the NCAA-W procedure - how would you be sure ego would not be involved in who takes the call? How do both officials actually agree which happened first, when they have seen, and signaled, two different things? How can you be absolutely certain the call that's finally made is the correct call, and that one team didn't get hosed?

Sure, egos could sway the result but the same can still happen in the NCAA-W situation where each official could swear that the foul happened in their primary. You haven't differentiated the NCAA-W here. Their rule is still subject to the those issues.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What bothers me about the blarge rule is the fact this one particular double-whistle is treated differently.

That is because it is fundamentally different.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You cannot, by all of the applicable rules involving contact, have both a player-control and a defensive foul happen at exactly the same time.

(well, you actually can, but that is not the play we're discussing)

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It's one or the other. Unfortunately, one official is wrong in their assessment of the play. The same thing can be said about the foul/travel situation - if the foul happened first and caused the travel, the official that signaled the violation would be wrong, since no travel violation can occur when the ball is dead.

This is where you're making the error. Neither official's call was wrong. Both observed a different act and ruled accordingly...and until a whistle was blown, neither could possibly know that the ball was no longer live. Only the timing of the whistles led to the need to determine which came first. The small amount of lag necessary in seeing and whistling an infraction will always create a small window of opportunity for a double whistle on two independent events. The ball is effectively retroactively dead to the point of the first infraction.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, one official would have to "overrule" another to get the call correct. It happens. You wouldn't call both in that situation, so likewise, you shouldn't call both in a block/charge.

Not at all, no one is saying the other call is wrong at all, just that a differnet action makes it irrelevant...not wrong.

The block/charge situation is just fundamentally different....two opinions of one event....not two events.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Again, the two officials would get together and make the correct call in any other double-whistle situation. In this case, their hands are tied and one team will be charged with a foul that they didn't otherwise deserve, only because the officials didn't do their job properly. In NCAA-W, the two officials get to come together to get the call correct, instead of charging one team with a foul they didn't earn or deserve, simply due to officials not following proper mechanics.

Maybe get it correct some of the time. If it was that clear, there other official wouldn't have made the call they made. Odds of getting it right in the NCAA-W are probably about 50%....maybe a little more....but there is a non-insignificant number of times it would be wrong with a double whammy.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You were doing fine until the red high-lighted statement. There is still no guarantee under Wimmens rules that you ARE going to get the call CORRECT. All you are doing is agreeing on the call, correct or not. It's a problem under ALL rulesets with double whistles. The only person that really knows whether the call is correct or not is maybe someone who is evaluating the game. And even then, that conclusion is subjective.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I wasn't trying to point out that the NCAA-W is the only way of getting the call correct, I was simply pointing out that the procedure is consistent with any other double-whistle procedure. Of course, the main intent is to get the call right when two officials disagree, or have conflicting calls. In the case of getting together and coming out with one call, of course it doesn't guarantee the call will be correct, but the odds are certainly improved. In the case of the NFHS "blarge" call, you will always charge one foul incorrectly, so there's a 100% incorrect rate.

I understand it appeases coaches and players to some extent, but where I disagree with the ruling is you're charging one player and team with a foul that didn't commit a foul, simply because the officials didn't do their job correctly. If offiicals follow the correct mechaincs, this should never happen. But when it does, their hands are tied when it comes to how it can be fixed - one team definitely gets screwed, rather than the chance of getting the call right.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In the case of the NFHS "blarge" call, you will always charge one foul incorrectly, so there's a 100% incorrect rate.

So you think a 200% error rate 50% of the time is better??

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I understand it appeases coaches and players to some extent, but where I disagree with the ruling is you're charging one player and team with a foul that didn't commit a foul, simply because the officials didn't do their job correctly. If offiicals follow the correct mechaincs, this should never happen.

Following the correct mechanics only avoids displaying the discrepancy. It doesn't ensure the call is correct when two officials have differing opinions on a play but they held thier whistle and/or signal.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But when it does, their hands are tied when it comes to how it can be fixed - one team definitely gets screwed, rather than the chance of getting the call right.

or the chance of getting it doubly wrong.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So you think a 200% error rate 50% of the time is better??

Following the correct mechanics only avoids displaying the discrepancy. It doesn't ensure the call is correct when two officials have differing opinions on a play but they held thier whistle and/or signal.


or the chance of getting it doubly wrong.

Huh? Don't you know 67.3% of all statistics are made up?

Camron, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about any more. My position is simply that I don't like the NFHS procedure on the blarge, because it guarantees one player will be charged with a foul that did not commit a foul, simply because the officials did not follow correct mechanics, rather than following the mechanics used in any other double-whistle situation. Two officials getting together after a double-whistle may not guarantee the correct call is made, but it certainly increases the odds. Reporting both fouls in a blarge, however, does guarantee an incorrect call is made every time. That's the part I don't like.

The best way to avoid it is to follow the proper mechanics and don't have a preliminary signal on a double-whistle, and we will never have this discussion when we work together.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

My position is simply that I don't like the NFHS procedure on the blarge, because it guarantees one player will be charged with a foul that did not commit a foul, simply because the officials did not follow correct mechanics, rather than following the mechanics used in any other double-whistle situation. Two officials getting together after a double-whistle may not guarantee the correct call is made, but it certainly increases the odds. Reporting both fouls in a blarge, however, does guarantee an incorrect call is made every time. That's the part I don't like.

And for the record, my position is that we should use the procedure set out in the rule set of the level we're doing. That way we WILL be calling the play the way that the rulesmakers want us to. And whether we personally like or dislike that applicable procedure shouldn't be a factor either.

Blarges happen to the best of us..at all levels. And when they happen, just deal with them the way that you're trained to.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And for the record, my position is that we should use the procedure set out in the rule set of the level we're doing. That way we WILL be calling the play the way that the rulesmakers want us to. And whether we personally like or dislike that applicable procedure shouldn't be a factor either.

Blarges happen to the best of us..at all levels. And when they happen, just deal with them the way that you're trained to.

And, for the record, I agree we should call according to the applicable rules.

Also, for the record, I will be the one grumbling under my breath as I report both fouls in that instance.

[rockyroad]

I watched a crew last year have a blarge and not even know it until they table started blowing the horn to get them over there.

Girl's Varsity - very close game. Late third qtr., H player drives from C's primary, and secondary defender steps in - BAM! C and L both blow whistles at the same time. C signals block and L signals PC. C turns around and reports his block while L is making sure everyone gets up ok from the pile. Then L jogs out and reports his PC. Table sits there for about 5 seconds looking really confused and then clock operator starts blowing the horn.

Get the whole crew over there...they discuss, and administer everything correctly. But man, did they look bad in the process. In the locker room after the game they walked in and the first words out of the R's mouth were "What the he!! happened on that play?"

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by jritchie

It happens in D-1 more because they are trying to look good first and not worry about proper mechanics! I'm with Rut, if they would do what they are taught, it wouldn't happen nearly as much as it has been.

Trying to look good first...where did you get this from?