Blarge administration

just another ref

Jurassic Referee wrote
If your call was that it was a charge, then you have to go to your partner to see what his call was. If he agrees it's a charge, you report it. If he thinks it was a block instead, you have to report both fouls. If you're not sure that it really was a charge, you shouldn't have blown your whistle in the first place. The rule of thumb at any level is never to make a call unless you are sure of that call. If you're not sure of your charge call in your "real case" above, then call your whistle an inadvertant whistle and defer to your partner.

So do have to report both or not?

eg-italy

just another ref wrote
So do have to report both or not?

I think that's JR's way of saying the same thing as I, while pretending to stick to the written rules. 🙂

Ciao

Jurassic Referee

eg-italy wrote
I think that's JR's way of saying the same thing as I, while pretending to stick to the written rules. 🙂

Nope, that's JR's way of saying that if you make a foul call on the floor that you thought was correct, and you then fail to follow through with your call just because your partner might have made a simultaneous but opposite foul call, you shouldn't be out on the court in the first place. You don't have the balls to be a GOOD sports official

Is that clear enough?🙂

BillyMac

Jurassic Referee wrote
If you make a foul call on the floor that you thought was correct, and you then fail to follow through with your call just because your partner might have made a simultaneous but opposite foul call, you shouldn't be out on the court in the first place.

That may be true by the book, and according to the way you do things in your little corner of Hell, but in my little corner of Connecticut, we are taught to give the call to the official that the play is moving toward (some boards and associations may prefer that the officials who had the primary where the play started take the call).

Jurassic Referee: If we, in our little corner of Connecticut, were to do it your way, the proper way according to the rules, we would really piss off our partners, and you know what happens to officials who piss off their partners all the time? Your reputation suffers, your ratings, and rankings suffer, and nobody wants to work with your any more.

When in Rome ...

JRutledge

Jurassic Referee wrote
If your call was that it was a charge, then you have to go to your partner to see what his call was. If he agrees it's a charge, you report it. If he thinks it was a block instead, you have to report both fouls. If you're not sure that it really was a charge, you shouldn't have blown your whistle in the first place. The rule of thumb at any level is never to make a call unless you are sure of that call. If you're not sure of your charge call in your "real case" above, then call your whistle an inadvertant whistle and defer to your partner.

A "clearer view" has got nothing to do with the final result either, same as knowing whose primary it came from too. What matters is that you both blew your whistle for a foul on the same play. Whether one of you shouldn't have blown their whistle is now moot because both of you actually DID blow their whistle. You and your partner also both signalled fouls by blowing your whistle and raising an arm with a closed fist(using proper mechanics), even though neither actually signalled the nature of the foul. If you now have conflicting foul calls, you have a "blarge" and have to report both the charge and the block under NCAA Mens and NFHS rules.

I hope you are only talking about blarge situations, not a regular double whistle. There is no way I am going to the table with a foul that my partner(s) have agreed that we may not have the same exact thing, but we make a decision to give that call to one official or another. We call things because of our perspective which can be honestly different from someone because of our angle. That does not mean that the call we are personally making is correct or did not have something else happen first.

Peace

eg-italy

Jurassic Referee wrote
Nope, that's JR's way of saying that if you make a foul call on the floor that you thought was correct, and you then fail to follow through with your call just because your partner might have made a simultaneous but opposite foul call, you shouldn't be out on the court in the first place. You don't have the balls to be a GOOD sports official

Is that clear enough?🙂

That's a bit rude, isn't it? 🙂 It's not "having balls" or not. It's just being on the court and knowing that we are not perfect; that we can call something based on our view which can be nonoptimal. I call a contact which has to be called, be it a charge or a block, and the mechanics tells me to call it, but I realize that (1) it's a double coverage area, (2) my partner has a better perspective, and (3) my partner may have called it different from me: all I should do in order to respect the game is to leave the call to my partner. That's it: being a team and not two or three officials who happen to be on the court at the same time.

Ciao

APG

Jurassic Referee wrote
Nope, that's JR's way of saying that if you make a foul call on the floor that you thought was correct, and you then fail to follow through with your call just because your partner might have made a simultaneous but opposite foul call, you shouldn't be out on the court in the first place. You don't have the balls to be a GOOD sports official

Is that clear enough?🙂

Just want to understand JR...on a double whistle involving a block charge situation, two officials go up with a fist to signal a foul. Neither has given a preliminary signal as to whether it's a block or a charge. Through whatever method, the call is deferred to one official and he signals a block. In the other official's opinion, the play was a charge and would of be signaled as such without the double whistle/if the play was deferred to him.

Are you saying that you would still call a double foul in this situation? I can't imagine that is what you're saying, because what would be the point of following correct mechanics and holding your prelim to avoid the blarge?

Camron Rust

Jurassic Referee wrote
If your call was that it was a charge, then you have to go to your partner to see what his call was. If he agrees it's a charge, you report it. If he thinks it was a block instead, you have to report both fouls. If you're not sure that it really was a charge, you shouldn't have blown your whistle in the first place. The rule of thumb at any level is never to make a call unless you are sure of that call. If you're not sure of your charge call in your "real case" above, then call your whistle an inadvertant whistle and defer to your partner.

A "clearer view" has got nothing to do with the final result either, same as knowing whose primary it came from too. What matters is that you both blew your whistle for a foul on the same play. Whether one of you shouldn't have blown their whistle is now moot because both of you actually DID blow their whistle. You and your partner also both signalled fouls by blowing your whistle and raising an arm with a closed fist(using proper mechanics), even though neither actually signalled the nature of the foul. If you now have conflicting foul calls, you have a "blarge" and have to report both the charge and the block under NCAA Mens and NFHS rules.

I disagree.

I thought we were all on the same page about what it meant to make opposite calls (except for the couple of people that insist that it is not a blarge until both officials report to the table).

Blowing the whistle and raising a fist is NOT the same as making the call. Until an official signals the type of foul, nothing has been called, yet. The whole point of going to the double foul is to cover the situation where the officials have indicated opposite calls...not just thought about opposite calls.

Done correctly, one official will realize that their partner should have the call and will give it up or will, knowing they saw something interesting, will tell their partner(s) that they're taking the call. No discussion, no need to know what they were going to call.

just another ref

Camron Rust wrote
Blowing the whistle and raising a fist is NOT the same as making the call. Until an official signals the type of foul, nothing has been called, yet.

Like you, I thought most were in agreement on this point. But, while the above is not an unreasonable way to approach the situation, it is not supported by rule in any way that I am aware.

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
Like you, I thought most were in agreement on this point. But, while the above is not an unreasonable way to approach the situation, it is not supported by rule in any way that I am aware.

Then we are playing with semantics. No one knows what you have until you either talk about it or you signal. The rules do not say anything about reporting two different fouls because we simply blow our whistles or do not signal.

Rules only include two different signals (block and a PC foul) and what to do with that strictly under the rules. To assume more is really over the top if you ask me. Not saying you personally JAR is saying that, just think we doing what we do on this board, over analyze the common and basic situation and turn into something we were never talking about in the first place.

Another day, another dollar I guess. 😀

Peace

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
Rules only include two different signals (block and a PC foul) and what to do with that strictly under the rules. To assume more is really over the top if you ask me.

Gonna have to explain that one a bit more.

tref

Ok, sooooooo... all of that being said, I shouldnt follow Jurassic's "Wonderful Words of Wisdom" on this matter & go with what I originally said in post #91 instead? 🙄

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
Gonna have to explain that one a bit more.

Do you know of any rule in the rulebook that says a simple double whistle should be handled the same as the "blarge" example given in the casebook?

There is no such reference. There might be a classification of what a foul is, but no suggestion that we simply have two (or 3) officials have a call and blow a whistle that we must report all fouls no matter what by rule.

I do not think I am telling you anything you do not already know. But maybe you are not understanding what I was trying to say. I thought I was clear, but maybe not.

Peace

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
Do you know of any rule in the rulebook that says a simple double whistle should be handled the same as the "blarge" example given in the casebook?

Obviously, there is none. My concern all along on this matter, is whether the case play is based on the fact that there was a double whistle, or a double signal, or a conflicting preliminary signal, or

WHAT IS THE POINT OF NO RETURN??

What is a call? I have been told with regard to granting a timeout that the timeout "call" is a mental event which occurs upon the recognition of the request and is not directly tied to the whistle/signal.

Why is this different?

Try this hypothetical. Contact takes place. Everybody in the building, including you, sees a PC foul. Your partner quickly whistles and signals a blocking foul before you get the gun out of the holster. You are momentarily stunned and do nothing. Are you out of the play now because he got there first?

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
Try this hypothetical. Contact takes place. Everybody in the building, including you, sees a PC foul. Your partner quickly whistles and signals a blocking foul before you get the gun out of the holster. You are momentarily stunned and do nothing. Are you out of the play now because he got there first?

We are never going to please everyone or the people we work with always. We have to have some process to make decisions. All sports have those processes to decide who has what and not every judgment call is up for debate. For example in football if someone comes in a rules a pass in complete, that is what we go with. The same should be true and is true in a situation where there is a call between two basketball officials. If that is not done, then every call will be debated and up for some question. We cannot do that or our games will take hours potentially. There has to be a point we live with a call. I think it is totally unrealistic that we will always have everyone agree with a call. We have primary coverage areas for a reason. We know when someone had a better angle. And if there is a real dispute, then officials that cannot get calls right do not need to be working certain games or certain levels. We all miss calls from time to time. Some miss more than others. And most calls are not block-charge in nature either. And in my experience most double fouls are not really in dispute as we know what the outcome will and should be with the call in the first place.

Peace

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
We are never going to please everyone or the people we work with always. We have to have some process to make decisions. All sports have those processes to decide who has what and not every judgment call is up for debate. For example in football if someone comes in a rules a pass in complete, that is what we go with. The same should be true and is true in a situation where there is a call between two basketball officials. If that is not done, then every call will be debated and up for some question. We cannot do that or our games will take hours potentially. There has to be a point we live with a call. I think it is totally unrealistic that we will always have everyone agree with a call. We have primary coverage areas for a reason. We know when someone had a better angle. And if there is a real dispute, then officials that cannot get calls right do not need to be working certain games or certain levels. We all miss calls from time to time. Some miss more than others. And most calls are not block-charge in nature either. And in my experience most double fouls are not really in dispute as we know what the outcome will and should be with the call in the first place.

Peace

All true, but not the point. The point was whether anyone would consider that he had mentally made a call at this point and report it.

I hope not.

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
All true, but not the point. The point was whether anyone would consider that he had mentally made a call at this point and report it.

I hope not.

I too would hope not.

Peace

Judtech

Wow, what fun!!
NCAAREF: I think I might be the only one who gets what you are trying to say. I believe what you are trying to say is that it is a physical and spatial impossibility for a player to both "take a charge" and commit a blocking foul. You are either legal or you are not. And If I may be so bold I will answer the questions brought to you about why the BLARGE situation. The reason that is put in the rule book is because of mistakes made by the officials on the floor. It has little to do with whether the call is correct or not, but how do we cover a situation where officials did not follow proper procedures.

NFHS NCAA M and NCAA Women happen to handle it different ways. I prefer the NCAA W way, for several reasons. As was stated, NCAA W primaries can be a little more fluid. For instance, how do you determine WHERE the play came from? The ball handler may be coming from C's area but the defender may be coming from L's position. When contact occurs, C may be blocked out from seeing the defender and vice versa. It is amazing the amount of information that can QUICKLY be exchanged when officials get together. You will hear over and over and over again at NCAA W camps etc GET THE PLAY RIGHT. Seems pretty clear to me at that point what the intent of the rules are and powers that be want to happen in this situation.
I have personally seen this more in HS games but that may just be me. And if it were to happen to me in a HS game I would follow those proceudures. However, it doesn't keep me from liking what the directive is on the NCAAW side. In more ways than one on the NCAA women side it is irrelevant whether you have 'balls' or not but whether you get the play/situation correct.

Camron Rust

Judtech wrote
Wow, what fun!!
NCAAREF: I think I might be the only one who gets what you are trying to say. I believe what you are trying to say is that it is a physical and spatial impossibility for a player to both "take a charge" and commit a blocking foul. You are either legal or you are not. And If I may be so bold I will answer the questions brought to you about why the BLARGE situation. The reason that is put in the rule book is because of mistakes made by the officials on the floor. It has little to do with whether the call is correct or not, but how do we cover a situation where officials did not follow proper procedures.

I think you are wrong. I think everyone knows what he is saying....but it is irrelevant. No one is saying it can be both. It should have been one or the other but fouls are judgment calls and two different officials has differing judgments. Both may have had a great view of the play and just have differing opinions.

M&M Guy

Camron Rust wrote
I think you are wrong. I think everyone knows what he is saying....but it is irrelevant. No one is saying it can be both. It should have been one or the other but fouls are judgment calls and two different officials has differing judgments. Both may have had a great view of the play and just have differing opinions.

A1 dribbles around the perimiter against the zone, and steps directly into the area that would be between the T's primary coverage area and C's area, and launches a 3. The C points at the ground, indicating a 2-point try, while the T raises their arm for the 3. The try is successful. What do we do?

Both officials simply had different judgements on the same play, but we know, by rule, both cannot be correct. Using the "blarge" administration, we would have to count both. (2 1/2 points? 5 points?!?) Of course not; the officials would have to get together and eventually decide someone's going to be "correct" and someone's going to be "wrong" on that play. It happens. So why is the blarge treated differently than any other double-whistle on one play where the officials disagree on the call?

« Previous Page Next Page »