Blarge administration

[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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ego of the people involved.

I thought that we were supposed to check those at the door

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I know. I've said many times before I'll call it as it's written, under the proper rules set. But I can still say the NFHS version is a stoopid rule.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why do I have to keep repeating this to you?

Because I'm a stubborn SOB. Just ask my wife.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Actually, I think a majority of double-whistles are what two officials think about one event. It's just that most of the time the officials agree, and only one takes the call to the table. It's just what happens when they disagree, and show different signals, that's the issue.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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!!!

Good example - what do you do if your partner comes over to you and tells you there was no contact on the foul you just called? One of you is right, and one of you is wrong - different opinions on the same play.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

The reason for the NFHS blarge ruling is because the officials were wrong by not following the proper mechanics. Same issue - wrong mechanics - but different procedures and different results. That's been my point.

Camron, I'm done discussing this. We each have our reasons why we believe the "blarge" rule is in effect in NFHS and NCAA-M, but since neither one of us is on the rules committee, or personally knows someone who is, we will just have to agree to disagree as to the reason. We do know for certain when we work together, we will follow the rule as written, and then one us will get slapped up 'side of the head after the game for not following the correct mechanincs on the play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Actually, I think a majority of double-whistles are what two officials think about one event. It's just that most of the time the officials agree, and only one takes the call to the table. It's just what happens when they disagree, and show different signals, that's the issue.

Agree.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Good example - what do you do if your partner comes over to you and tells you there was no contact on the foul you just called? One of you is right, and one of you is wrong - different opinions on the same play.

Nothing....because a non-call is not a call...we don't call non-infractions. If an official calls a foul, it is a foul. Unless the other official has a different infraction that precedes it, there is nothing for them to add.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The reason for the NFHS blarge ruling is because the officials were wrong by not following the proper mechanics. Same issue - wrong mechanics - but different procedures and different results. That's been my point.

One final thing to consider.....mechanics are not rules.....and are not even close to rules. They are just a framework established in order to best administer the rules. Not following a mechanic doesn't change the fact that an official saw and called an infraction.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

As an aside: Here in the Constitution State we do have our own "Connecticut Only IAABO" mechanic: Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

As an aside: Here in the Constitution State we do have our own "Connecticut Only IAABO" mechanic: Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.

Connecticut only???

Anybody in Connecticut or IAABO ever read case book play 2.7.8? Specifically, the part that says "Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for a two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in case of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded."

That is how/when we're supposed to signal made 2-point goals. That makes the IABBO mechanic redundant imo.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Connecticut only??? Anybody in Connecticut or IAABO ever read case book play 2.7.8? Specifically, the part that says "Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for a two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in case of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded."

2.7.8 SITUATION: During the course of the game, the officials: (a) do not signal successful two-point field goals or free throws; or (b) do signal the value of point(s) resulting from defensive goaltending or basket interference. RULING: This is proper procedure. Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in cases of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded. Officials shall also continue to signal a successful three-point goal.

This casebook play seems to describe the signaling of a successful two point or a successful three point try. Here in Connecticut we signal a two point try attempt where the shooter has a foot on the line by pointing to the three point line.

Remember back in the twentieth century when we signaled all successful two point or successful one point trys by indicating the number of points with two fingers or one finger?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This casebook play seems to describe the signaling of a successful two point or a successful three point try. Here in Connecticut we signal a two point try attempt where the shooter has a foot on the line by pointing to the three point line.

And that's why I amended my post to say that having us signal a 2-point goal in case of doubt or confusion makes that IAABO mechanic redundant.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

Not quite. The lack of any official signalling a 3 is the signal it is a 2. The lack of any one official signaling a 3 is nothing....unless you're saying the lead should also be signaling 3's at the top of the key.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you're saying the lead should also be signaling 3's at the top of the key.

You're right. I should have said, "from your primary coverage area".

Of course there is always that "gray area" in a two person game, the foul line extended on the lead's side.