Blarge administration

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So why is the blarge treated differently than any other double-whistle on one play where the officials disagree on the call?

Ego of the people involved.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So why is the blarge treated differently than any other double-whistle on one play where the officials disagree on the call?

Who knows? And it don't make no nevermind anyway. They give us rules and we're expected to follow 'em. And not just the rules we like either. If we have simultaneous whistles for a foul and a violation, we have to pick one- no matter whether conflicting signals were given or not. Blarges are handled differently. Whether the applications make sense or not isn't a factor.

We can discuss this for another 9 pages and ain't nuthin' gonna change. It just is what it is.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So why is the blarge treated differently than any other double-whistle on one play where the officials disagree on the call?

Why do I have to keep repeating this to you?

It is because a blarge is completely UNLIKE every other double whistle situation. It is about what two officials THINK about ONE event vs. what two officials THINK about TWO independent events.

Your example of 2 vs. 3 is not the same....one official sees a foot on the line and the other didn't see it...could be that they looked at different times. It is a 2....period. Same thing about stepping OOB (which might have double coverage briefly in transistion)....if one official calls it OOB, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Seeing a foot on a line is a positive ruling, not seeing a foot on a line is not.

EDIT: your 2 vs. 3 situation is a lot closer to one official calling a foul and the other not calling a foul. If one offiical really thinks it shouldn't have been a foul, should he/she step in and have a discussion? Maybe they think the player didn't even make contact!!!

Plus, 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....yeah, it is done, but technically it is not proper.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I will kindly disagree. It IS relevant. It goes to my point about this being a rule to cover an OFFICIALS mistake. This IS handled differently than any other double whistle, even when prelims are given and I am not sure why either. Which I why I like the NCAA W policy better.
I would open a can a worms about double fouls being impossible as well, but this is providing enough dialogue!! (someone HAD to foul first! HA)