Blarge administration

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

In the first place, this is out of date. The word "calls" has been changed to "rules" in the current casebook. In the second place, it is possible to make a "call" or a "ruling" while making any signal, whether it be right or wrong, or no signal at all. Still, I understand, that's the way everybody interprets this case and that's the way they do it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In the first place, this is out of date. The word "calls" has been changed to "rules" in the current casebook. In the second place, it is possible to make a "call" or a "ruling" while making any signal, whether it be right or wrong, or no signal at all. Still, I understand, that's the way everybody interprets this case and that's the way they do it.

Sorry. Newest rulebook and casebook on my hard drive are 2012-13.

We've got coaches around here smart enough to note that one official is showing a player control preliminary signal and the other official is showing a block preliminary signal.

We've also got a few officials (most of them being subvarsity) who wouldn't realize that this is the double foul situation as described in said casebook play, and would try to get out of it by getting together to discuss the play and then convince the coaches that one official had a "better look" than the other and come up with only one foul.

Even then, a few coaches would followup with a "third party" official (they all have their go to rules guys, friend, neighbor, former teammate, brother-in-law, etc.), and discover that the two officials in the game screwed up.

Back to doing it properly, I believe that a preliminary signal is tantamount to "ruling". Others may disagree, depending on how one defines "rules".

I've never had a blarge,, however, a perfect storm of conditions, very loud gym, perfectly simultaneous whistles, several players between my partner and me, both of us wanting to sell our calls, could lead me down that path.

There but for the grace of God, go I.

[Raymond]

So I guess b/c we have a new member who likes to asks a whole bunch of questions, JAR is now going to regurgitate the double foul nonsense only he adheres to.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So I guess b/c we have a new member who likes to asks a whole bunch of questions, JAR is now going to regurgitate the double foul nonsense only he adheres to.

Noooooooo.....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So I guess b/c we have a new member who likes to asks a whole bunch of questions, JAR is now going to regurgitate the double foul nonsense only he adheres to.

The only reason I commented was because of this statement:

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 makes it look like the specifics of this signal versus that signal are mentioned in the rule, when in fact, no signals at all appear in the case, and, as we all know, as far as the rule itself, a block and a charge on the same play are not possible. Furthermore, the idea that both signals seal the deal, as near as I can tell, has caused some officials to take this one step farther and report both fouls even when they had "ruled" on two different contacts, one of which may have occurred before the other.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... Furthermore, the idea that both signals seal the deal, as near as I can tell, has caused some officials to take this one step farther and report both fouls even when they had "ruled" on two different contacts, one of which may have occurred before the other.

I've never witnessed or heard of that happening with any officials I've come in contact with.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I've never witnessed or heard of that happening with any officials I've come in contact with.

I haven't either, but I'm just thinking that if one official had A1 pushing off with the inside arm while the other had B1 arriving late to the spot and taking the contact which he thought was torso to torso, they might be so hung up on the fact that they had already given conflicting signals that they wouldn't think to confer and come out with the one call, which would be perfectly acceptable.


WOULDN'T IT?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I haven't either, but I'm just thinking that if one official had A1 pushing off with the inside arm while the other had B1 arriving late to the spot and taking the contact which he thought was torso to torso, they might be so hung up on the fact that they had already give conflicting signals that they wouldn't think to confer and come out with the one call, which would be perfectly acceptable.


WOULDN'T IT?

Well, the only "blarge" I've ever been directly involved in was not a fast break or even a play in the paint going to the basket. Happened 9 years ago in my 1st season of college officiating. I was Trail and my partner (whom I just saw working an NBA Summer League game) was Lead for a one-on-on matchup FTLE, inside the 3-point arc. As A1 started his drive there was contact and a double whistle. We both posted, then made eye contact. We both assumed the other was giving up the call and at the same time I went PC and he went block. We reported both. Turns out I had A1 pushing off with an extended arm while my partner had B1 sticking his knee/leg out and making contact.

Which call should we have gone with?

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sorry. Newest rulebook and casebook on my hard drive are 2012-13.

We've got coaches around here smart enough to note that one official is showing a player control preliminary signal and the other official is showing a block preliminary signal.

We've also got a few officials (most of them being subvarsity) who wouldn't realize that this is the double foul situation as described in said casebook play, and would try to get out of it by getting together to discuss the play and then convince the coaches that one official had a "better look" than the other and come up with only one foul.

Even then, a few coaches would followup with a "third party" official (they all have their go to rules guys, friend, neighbor, former teammate, brother-in-law, etc.), and discover that the two officials in the game screwed up.

Back to doing it properly, I believe that a preliminary signal is tantamount to "ruling". Others may disagree, depending on how one defines "rules".

I've never had a blarge,, however, a perfect storm of conditions, very loud gym, perfectly simultaneous whistles, several players between my partner and me, both of us wanting to sell our calls, could lead me down that path.

There but for the grace of God, go I.

BillyMac, I just checked the NFHS Central Hub on Arbiter, and Case Play 4.19.8.C is exactly the same as in 2012-13. No reason for justaref to argue that this interpretation is out of date.
NFHS Basketball Casebook 2017-18 says: "4.19.8 SITUATION C:

A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official rules a blocking foul on B1 and the other official rules a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.

RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)"