Blarge administration

[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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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?

If they happened at the same time, you report both. This is the definition of a double foul. But if you don't confer, how will you know what you had? And the conference could provide additional information.


"What you got?"
"He stuck out his left arm."
" Yeah, I saw that but he didn't even make contact."
"Okay, you had a better angle. It's your call. Take it."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If they happened at the same time, you report both. This is the definition of a double foul. But if you don't confer, how will you know what you had? ...

I've never seen a blarge where the official didn't confer before reporting.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I've never seen a blarge where the official didn't confer before reporting.

When you said you both assumed the other was giving up the call and then reported, I thought you meant you did so without conferring. So, in this situation, were preliminaries given? And whether they were or not, was going with one call an option?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When you said you both assumed the other was giving up the call and then reported, I thought you meant you did so without conferring. So, in this situation, were preliminaries given? And whether they were or not, was going with one call an option?

After posting and making eye contact, we simultaneously gave conflicting signals (block & PC). We got together and reported both.

[ilyazhito]

This would be one of the few times where a blarge is a legitimate call. Both of you were in good position to see the action that happened, and there was actually something that both players did wrong. CC to you and the Lead.

Most blarges are not like this, because on the typical blarge, two players crash, two officials blow their whistles with differing calls, and only one of the calls is correct (either the defender was in legal guarding position prior to contact (charge) or not (block). However, in either scenario, the two calls are irrecusable if the officials both give a preliminary signal.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This would be one of the few times where a blarge is a legitimate call. Both of you were in good position to see the action that happened, and there was actually something that both players did wrong. CC to you and the Lead.

Most blarges are not like this, because on the typical blarge, two players crash, two officials blow their whistles with differing calls, and only one of the calls is correct (either the defender was in legal guarding position prior to contact (charge) or not (block). However, in either scenario, the two calls are irrecusable if the officials both give a preliminary signal.

This is along the lines of what I'm saying. The case play says one official rules a charge while the other rules a block. If it's a given that this does mean signals, does everyone maintain that this means the PC signal too, as opposed to only the charge signal? Obviously a charge is not the only kind of PC foul. Furthermore, around here it has always been rare for an official to give the actual charge signal, which is two open hands extended (is it not?) as a preliminary. Also, in recent years, it seems that many have abandoned the PC signal as well, choosing instead to use the one handed punch for anything against the offense, which is actually the team control signal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is along the lines of what I'm saying. The case play says one official rules a charge while the other rules a block. If it's a given that this does mean signals, does everyone maintain that this means the PC signal too, as opposed to only the charge signal? Obviously a charge is not the only kind of PC foul. Furthermore, around here it has always been rare for an official to give the actual charge signal, which is two open hands extended (is it not?) as a preliminary. Also, in recent years, it seems that many have abandoned the PC signal as well, choosing instead to use the one handed punch for anything against the offense, which is actually the team control signal.

This is what confuses me about your position. What would the "call" be if you do not signal? You think that we "post" on a foul and because we feel we have something different than our partner that signaled and we personally did nothing but post, this interpretation suggests we must go with a double foul?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... in recent years, it seems that many have abandoned the PC signal as well, choosing instead to use the one handed punch for anything against the offense, which is actually the team control signal.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we have more variations of player control foul/charge signals than Carter’s has liver pills.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is what confuses me about your position. What would the "call" be if you do not signal? You think that we "post" on a foul and because we feel we have something different than our partner that signaled and we personally did nothing but post, this interpretation suggests we must go with a double foul?

Peace

The call (ruling) is whatever you say it is regardless of what signal you give. That's all I've ever said, and to date I've seen nothing to disprove it. The case play tells what to do if the officials make conflicting rulings. It says nothing about what they must do, period.


Full disclosure: I had never seen the term "posting" before this thread. This means just going up with a fist? So you don't "rule" anything when you just go up with a fist?

[Freddy]

An example of posting prior to signaling. Thrown out there for purposes of discussion because it seems on topic. If not, simply disregard.

Post and Hold

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The call (ruling) is whatever you say it is regardless of what signal you give. That's all I've ever said, and to date I've seen nothing to disprove it. The case play tells what to do if the officials make conflicting rulings. It says nothing about what they must do, period.

You are literally the only person that makes that argument. I have never seen anyone on or off this site make that argument. Well, you go with that, but you had the chance and choose not to ask. So I will stick with the position I hold.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Full disclosure: I had never seen the term "posting" before this thread. This means just going up with a fist? So you don't "rule" anything when you just go up with a fist?

You have a foul, but you certainly do have not told everyone. And that is not what the caseplay is addressing as much as you keep trying to go down the rabbit hole.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

JRutedge, you are right. In the case play, both officials declared the separate fouls that they had because they gave the appropriate signals. End of story.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

An example of posting prior to signaling. Thrown out there for purposes of discussion because it seems on topic. If not, simply disregard.

Post and Hold

,


Everyone, as far as I know, agrees that this is the proper way to do it. But, in this video, if you are the C and you are positive that the correct call is a block, it seems to me that you have made a ruling, whether anyone else knows what it is or not. The case play says if you rule one thing and your partner rules the other, report both. But everyone here says you don't have to report both unless conflicting signals are given. If that's the way everyone does it (it isn't) fine, but it provokes more questions. What if, in this video, the L posts and holds, and the C quickly signals block, then realizes he kicked it. Can he change his own call/signal/ruling or not?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...


Full disclosure: I had never seen the term "posting" before this thread. This means just going up with a fist? So you don't "rule" anything when you just go up with a fist?

Correct. And all pregame conversations I've been involved in concerning avoiding blarges always include statements about officials posting without giving a preliminary.