Blarge administration
 

Ok, this is a bit embarrassing because I thought I knew this. Reviewing the rule and case books for the season. Case 4.19.8c- says blarge administration on a missed shot is double personal foul, point of interruption is a try for goal, so no team control and we go to AP.
Is this a recent change? Was under the obviously wrong impression of double foul, 1 foul shot and continue play from there...?
Z

Who are you going to give the one shot to?

Not a recent change, all doubles go POI.

What we call a "blarge" is always a double foul by rule. All double fouls go to POI. And if the shot is in the air before the foul, then the basket can count too (or if a violation like goal tending is committed). This rule has been this way for about 4 years now. Not sure what has changed or what you could think has changed.

Peace

Excellent explanation. My favorite explanation was given at camp once: "Charge both fouls, score it if it's in the air and go to the POI. Then fire those two f*&^ers!" :D

Not to pile on, Zee, but when did we ever give 1 free throw in this sitch? :confused:

When are NCAAM and the NFHS going to follow the NCAAW and not allow a change to be called? The two calling officials must get together and decide whos call it is and make one call. Make one coach mad...not two.

Couldn't agree more!! Give it up to the primary and move on.

And who's primary is it in if both players have one foot in each area and are moving along the dividing line of the two area?

That is why you get together and talk about it, that is why you cover this during your pregame. I think to give it up to the officials whos area it is coming out of.

Anything is better than having to call a double foul!

True, its best to come together... even better to hold prelims!

I hear this alot too, but who has the best look at the status of the secondary defenders LGP?

I think that is a dumb mechanic and I seriously doubt that the Men's side is going to change that. It is easy to avoid if you do the right things. But to have both officials call something and only pick one in that case is just silly. I would never advocate that mechanic. And if officials would just raise their hand we would not have to worry about this.

Peace

JRut,

If this was a perfect world that would work but there were a lot of blarges at the D1 men's level last season. It can't be a block and a charge...it has to be one or the other. We would love for officials to be more patient and work in their primary but blarges are going to happen and IMO getting together is the lesser of two evils here.

There are a lot of blarges in D1 men's because the officials refuse to simply raise their hands to make a simple PC foul call. They run out to call something immediately. If they stopped doing that and supervisors stopped hiring guys or never punishing them for this, then they would not have that problem. I still think it is a silly mechanic to choose and put more responsibility on officials to avoid such situations is better. Just an opinion.

Peace

Pregame... pregame... pregame!

Yup. In the immortal words of Mother Teresa... "Sh!t happens!" And it happened to some of the better D1 guys last year too. You just have to adjudicate the play by the ruleset being used.

And cue JAR in 5...4...3...2...1...

Been busy today- not ignoring everyone.

Flipping the index cards in my head reveals that watching a game before mine over the summer had a blarge and one of the refs hanging around commented that the blarge should go like this- Tweet- double whistle, different fouls- come together and discuss, if neither backs off the call, you have a blarge which is administered as a foul for each and only 1 foul shot (if shot was missed).

I know that this was wrong, but I haven't been in the book for awhile, so I didn't exactly recall what the proper adminsitration was. Of course, now I've been back in the book and found the correct administration.

Perhaps it is also a difference in NCAAW and NCAAM, but then again, it's never always 100% clear during AAU ball which rules we are using. If I recall correctly, it was a girls tourney, using some NCAAW rules.

Z

Even tagging the wrong player with the foul?

Nice parrot line....None of what you said addresses the play as I presented it.

Pregame has NOTHING to do with how you ultimately resolve this situation.

If the player is coming along the line separating the two areas (and the player received the ball in that location), just who's area is it in and who's area is it actually coming from?

The point is that the NCAA-W rule has holes in it...there are situations that it still doesn't resolve.

The officials STILL have to agree about exactly where the foul occurred to determine who's primary it was in....and some plays will be in both.

Camron - what "holes" are you talking about in the NCAA-W mechanic? How do you handle ANY double-whistle situation? How about a double whistle where one official has a foul, and the other official signals a travel? And the play happened in a dual-coverage area? How does a crew handle that in NCAA-M or NFHS, vs. the NCAA-W rule and mechanic on a blarge?

Pre-gaming these plays is the BEST way to determine how they will be resolved on the court. And the blarge is no different than any other double-whistle situation where two officials have different calls.

To me, the double foul call on a blarge is simply a cop-out call, and there is absolutley no rule basis behind it. However, I understand the reason for the call is because officials still do not always use the proper mechanics, so when they don't in this case, both teams get penalized. It's not fair to one of the teams, but perhaps that's the penalty for an official screwing up. No different than correctable error situations or timing errors - we can argue all day whether the rule book solutions are "fair" to one team or another, but perhaps the rule committees decided they would make these solutions purposely "not fair" in order to make sure officials don't screw up so often.

The double foul penalty on the blarge is in the rule in NFHS and NCAA-M, so that is how it needs to be enforced. If a crew is mechanically sound, it will never happen, just like a correctable error will never happen to a crew that follows all the prescribed mechaincs. But, if a blarge does happen, the NCAA-W rule is still the best way, overall rule-wise, to handle it, just like any other double-whistle situation.

I wasn't gonna, but since you asked.

My question is always that even if the officials did simply raise a hand, isn't that still "calling a foul"?

True, the whole world doesn't know what each official's call was at this point, but I see nothing written anywhere which says that a preliminary signal makes any call any more binding and irreversible.

4.19.8 Situation C (last year's casebook) says so.

"One officials calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1."

I would think that would be hard to do without a preliminary signal. ;)

Peace

And you feel that way because you work that level. I am OK with that, but that does not mean the rest of us or anyone that does not work that level has to agree that is the best way. Because as Cameron said, that philosophy has holes in it. I admit that a blarge is not ideal for anyone, but at least you are not arbitrarily choosing who gets the call. Because one of the blarges I have had in my career was in transition in the middle of the court. There was no "primary" at least listed. At least we followed a hard fast rule. The NCAAW side seems like we might decide based on the ego of the individuals rather than just a hard fast rule. And just like a correctable error there is no wiggle room how to solve the problem. The NCAAW side created a lot of wiggle room if you ask me.

Peace

Why? You go up with a fist. Your partner does likewise. You know you what your call was going to be and so does he. It is not that unusual for you and your partner to have different calls on the same play. But it's okay to only report one of them unless you gave conflicting preliminary signals.

Where is this written?

nowhere

I kinda like having wiggle room when solving problems.

But, hey, I farm for a living. My whole life is wiggle room.

:D

We do a lot of things that are not written. If everything was spelled out explicitly all the time, you would not have room to change.

And it is writing the interpretation. If that is not good enough for you that is fine, but it is written. Maybe not the way you would like it to be, but you cannot have two different calls unless you tell them. Unless the NF or NCAA expects you to read minds we have to determine somehow there were two different calls. I think we are a long way from getting a reliable machine to tell what officials are actually thinking without a signal.

Peace

If indeed this is the intent of the writer(s), a simple editorial change would cover it.

If 2 officials give conflicting preliminary signals on a block/charge play, both fouls must be reported.

4-19-8 and, naturally 4.19.8, deal with double fouls. The word signal does not appear in either. In theory, any call may be made after giving any signal, proper or otherwise, or no signal at all. No signal, conflicting signals, both examples of bad mechanics. But name another call that is changed by an official's failure to use proper mechanics.

Until now I have never heard a single person ever question the intent of this and a reason you will not likely see such a change. ;)

Peace

Camron,

Wrong player? You are going to tag both players with a foul...that is the alternative!

Nothing is perfect...but IMO it is better than a blarge and a double foul.

Blarges drive me nuts. Call your primary. Give up the call if it's a drive going away from you into the other official's primary. Raise your hand with a clinched fist. Eye contact on double whistle. Determine which foul came first and ignore the other one,unless flagrant or intentional.

How tough is that?

I never thought it was hard until a partner and I had a blarge last season in a juco mens game. 23 years and it was a first. Hopefully, it will be the only one.

I was the lead and the foul happened right in front of me in the lower half of the center of the lane. Not sure why the T jumped in on it, to be honest -- it was a no-brainer block, too, as a secondary defender slid under an airborne shooter. Partner sold it so poorly I didn't even realize he had called anything until it was too late. I'm not sure I would've ceded to his charge call had I seen it -- it was the wrong call made by the wrong official -- why should he get that wrong call to stick just cause he's quicker to the gun? The C came to me during a timeout and told me it was probably the easiest block to call and somehow the T got it wrong.

In an NCAAW game, I would've been able to have the right call (a block), but I actually liked how the rule tied my hands and left both coaches grumbly rather than one happy and the other seething. After a quick explanation, we had the ball back in play and the whole thing quickly forgotten. Till the locker room, of course.

I'm not sure what "holes" you and Camron are talking about, especially compared to how other double-whistle situations are handled.

Here's my main complaint about this rule - the NFHS and NCAA-M handle this one particular double-whistle situation differently than any other double-whistle situation. As I asked Camron, how would you handle this: in a dual-coverage area, you blow your whistle for a foul, and you partner blows their whistle for a travel. (Or, for that matter, pick any other double-whistle situation where you and your partner have different calls.) How do you handle that? I don't think you would come out and say "Since we both had a whistle, we're going to penalize both the travel and the foul". Of course not; you either get together and come out with one call (whose primary?), or perhaps one official steps up strongly and says "I've got it, it's mine." Is there "wiggle room" in that procedure? I guess so. Is one call made because of ego? Perhaps. But that's how double-whistles are normally handled. Until we get to this one particular double-whistle situation: the blarge. Why not handle it the same way as any other double-whistle?

Well I would rather have a situation that ties our hands than we can make a decision to choose one based on something no one else understands. Coaches and participants have no idea what our primaries are and honestly do not care. We are told to not to say, "That was not my primary" but all of a sudden in this case we can say that to them because we screwed up "once again" in their mind. Just about every blarge I have had (3 in my career) were a duel or transition. Only one of them could have been justified by the rule the NCAA-W used. The others there would have been in a considerable debate and might have caused problems later if we had to pass this off whose primary that the foul was called. I am sorry; I just do not like that. And Thank God that this is the way it is now. Then again it has been some time since I have had one and one of the reasons I am careful to give a signal when there is a possibility someone else could have something else. And as far as I am concerned we cannot change a rule because a very small percentage of people cannot follow the mechanics. And to be honest this was a problem mainly in one part of the country because they did not value raising their arm/hand/fist before calling a foul. And the NCAA-M mechanics changed so this should really not happen in it is followed.

Peace

We tag the wrong player with a foul every time we report both a block and a PC foul. Can't be both, so one of them is wrong.

This is why you do everything in your power to not have this happen.

Peace

I agree 100%...and I have never had one yet. I had a close call last season as I was L and a secondary defender stepped under an airborne shooter - but I was soooo quick going to the table that my C never had a chance to signal PC like he was going to! :)

My post was just negating the argument of possibly tagging the wrong player for the foul. That argument doesn't hold water in this discussion.

Chicken Or Egg ???
 

Part of my pregame: On double whistles, let’s both hold our preliminary signal and not give a block or player control signal. Make eye contact with each other. Give the call to whomever has the primary coverage, most often the lead official, unless you definitely have something different that happened first, in which case we’ll talk about it.

Something that will be talked about is one of us holding up a fist for a foul and the other holding up an open hand for a violation, so we get together and discuss it. The conversation usually goes something like this: "I saw your travel but he traveled because he got hammered so let's say we go with the foul because it came first", or, "I saw your foul, but he traveled before he got fouled so let's say that we go with the travel because it came first".

When the players are straddling two primaries and is moving in a direction that is neither toward or away from either one, who's call is it?

Easy...ALL other double whistles involve TWO different events. You decided which happened first and penalize accordingly. The blarge is ONE single event....neither could happen before the other....with two different opinions about what happened. It is a matter of deciding which person is right...or not.

How does pregaming decide where a play will happen on the court? That is the problem, not that you'll yield to the primary.

Actually, I feel the NCAA-W method is the cop-out. NCAA-W rules arbitrarily determine who is getting the foul based on whether their foot was 6 inches on one side of an invisible line or the other....not based on the actions of the players. The official who got it wrong just as well could be the one the NCAA-W rules defer to.

I disagree. At least with the double foul, you don't end up tagging the person/team with foul that deserved it least while the other person/team gets no penalty. It should either be both or neither.

Compare the two situations....

One person really deserved the foul but you tag both....1 incorect...1 correct. It more-or-less comes out as a do-over except a couple fouls are put in the book.

One person really deserved the foul but you tag one....you have about a 50% chance of actually getting it right but if you don't you double penalize the one that actually gets the foul....they get the foul and the other player does not. Now you have a 2 foul differential in the books vs. what should have been....2 incorrect.

Given that these are very infrequent, I'd rather be half right every time than incorrectly and doubly penalize one team half the time.

Agreed

Like talk it over with your partner and decide on one call.

I guess, but a lot of time you do not have to have any words said. Much of the time there is a recognition of who has the call and that person goes with it. The other official drops out and we talk about it later in the locker room.

Peace

+1

How can you say +1 when you don't agree with that philosophically?:confused:

Jeff said "much of the time". Your philosophy as in "talk it over with your parner and decide on one call' refers to ALL of the time. You're saying there should NEVER be a blarge. Everybody else is saying that there SHOULDN'T be a blarge, but if there IS a blarge, call it by the ruleset that you are using.

Trying to say that a very specific rule or case play is wrong or isn't applicable is patently ridiculous imo. Don't let that stop you though.:)

Camron, before I take the time to reply to your other statements, you still have not answered my question about other double-whistle situations: How should officials handle ANY double-whistle? How about when they each have a different call? Perhaps one has a violation, while the other has a foul, or each official has a foul on a different player; whose call is it? Perhaps the players are straddling the two primaries, as you mention above - you tell me: whose call is it?

See post #39 http://forum.officiating.com/694605-post39.html

That post doesn't answer the question at all.

Again, what is your procedure for a double-whistle, not involving a blarge?

It exactly answers it. See the red text in the quote above. The officials decide which infraction happened first, not who is right. Neither official overrides the other. The second official is still "correct" but the call is not relevant as the ball was already dead (usually).

It happens in D-1 more because they are trying to look good first and not worry about proper mechanics! I'm with Rut, if they would do what they are taught, it wouldn't happen nearly as much as it has been.

And, if it involves two differnet fouls and they can't decide which occurred first, it becomes a simultaneous foul and both are penalized...and you go to the POI..sort of like a doulbe foul. Hmmm.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;694880]Now I can turn around and ask you the same questions you asked about the NCAA-W procedure - how would you be sure ego would not be involved in who takes the call? How do both officials actually agree which happened first, when they have seen, and signaled, two different things? How can you be absolutely certain the call that's finally made is the correct call, and that one team didn't get hosed?

My point is, every objection you've given to the NCAA-W procedure can be used here. In other words, it's the officials' job to determine which event happened first, and then to make the correct call, not based on ego, or whether there was one foot in someone's primary, etc. That has been, and always will be, the procedure for a double whistle, where two officials have a different view of the same play.

What bothers me about the blarge rule is the fact this one particular double-whistle is treated differently. You cannot, by all of the applicable rules involving contact, have both a player-control and a defensive foul happen at exactly the same time. It's one or the other. Unfortunately, one official is wrong in their assessment of the play. The same thing can be said about the foul/travel situation - if the foul happend first and caused the travel, the official that signaled the violation would be wrong, since no travel violation can occur when the ball is dead. So, one official would have to "overrule" another to get the call correct. It happens. You wouldn't call both in that situation, so likewise, you shouldn't call both in a block/charge.

Again, the two officials would get together and make the correct call in any other double-whistle situation. In this case, their hands are tied and one team will be charged with a foul that they didn't otherwise deserve, only because the officials didn't do their job properly. In NCAA-W, the two officials get to come together to get the call correct, instead of charging one team with a foul they didn't earn or deserve, simply due to officials not following proper mechanics.

[QUOTE=M&M Guy;694899]You were doing fine until the red high-lighted statement. There is still no guarantee under Wimmens rules that you ARE going to get the call CORRECT. All you are doing is agreeing on the call, correct or not. It's a problem under ALL rulesets with double whistles. The only person that really knows whether the call is correct or not is maybe someone who is evaluating the game. And even then, that conclusion is subjective.

Sure, egos could sway the result but the same can still happen in the NCAA-W situation where each official could swear that the foul happened in their primary. You haven't differentiated the NCAA-W here. Their rule is still subject to the those issues.

That is because it is fundamentally different.
(well, you actually can, but that is not the play we're discussing)
This is where you're making the error. Neither official's call was wrong. Both observed a different act and ruled accordingly...and until a whistle was blown, neither could possibly know that the ball was no longer live. Only the timing of the whistles led to the need to determine which came first. The small amount of lag necessary in seeing and whistling an infraction will always create a small window of opportunity for a double whistle on two independent events. The ball is effectively retroactively dead to the point of the first infraction.

Not at all, no one is saying the other call is wrong at all, just that a differnet action makes it irrelevant...not wrong.

The block/charge situation is just fundamentally different....two opinions of one event....not two events.

Maybe get it correct some of the time. If it was that clear, there other official wouldn't have made the call they made. Odds of getting it right in the NCAA-W are probably about 50%....maybe a little more....but there is a non-insignificant number of times it would be wrong with a double whammy.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I wasn't trying to point out that the NCAA-W is the only way of getting the call correct, I was simply pointing out that the procedure is consistent with any other double-whistle procedure. Of course, the main intent is to get the call right when two officials disagree, or have conflicting calls. In the case of getting together and coming out with one call, of course it doesn't guarantee the call will be correct, but the odds are certainly improved. In the case of the NFHS "blarge" call, you will always charge one foul incorrectly, so there's a 100% incorrect rate.

I understand it appeases coaches and players to some extent, but where I disagree with the ruling is you're charging one player and team with a foul that didn't commit a foul, simply because the officials didn't do their job correctly. If offiicals follow the correct mechaincs, this should never happen. But when it does, their hands are tied when it comes to how it can be fixed - one team definitely gets screwed, rather than the chance of getting the call right.

So you think a 200% error rate 50% of the time is better?? :confused:
Following the correct mechanics only avoids displaying the discrepancy. It doesn't ensure the call is correct when two officials have differing opinions on a play but they held thier whistle and/or signal.

or the chance of getting it doubly wrong.

Huh? Don't you know 67.3% of all statistics are made up? :D

Camron, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about any more. My position is simply that I don't like the NFHS procedure on the blarge, because it guarantees one player will be charged with a foul that did not commit a foul, simply because the officials did not follow correct mechanics, rather than following the mechanics used in any other double-whistle situation. Two officials getting together after a double-whistle may not guarantee the correct call is made, but it certainly increases the odds. Reporting both fouls in a blarge, however, does guarantee an incorrect call is made every time. That's the part I don't like.

The best way to avoid it is to follow the proper mechanics and don't have a preliminary signal on a double-whistle, and we will never have this discussion when we work together. :)

And for the record, my position is that we should use the procedure set out in the rule set of the level we're doing. That way we WILL be calling the play the way that the rulesmakers want us to. And whether we personally like or dislike that applicable procedure shouldn't be a factor either.

Blarges happen to the best of us..at all levels. And when they happen, just deal with them the way that you're trained to.

And, for the record, I agree we should call according to the applicable rules.

Also, for the record, I will be the one grumbling under my breath as I report both fouls in that instance. :D

I watched a crew last year have a blarge and not even know it until they table started blowing the horn to get them over there.

Girl's Varsity - very close game. Late third qtr., H player drives from C's primary, and secondary defender steps in - BAM! C and L both blow whistles at the same time. C signals block and L signals PC. C turns around and reports his block while L is making sure everyone gets up ok from the pile. Then L jogs out and reports his PC. Table sits there for about 5 seconds looking really confused and then clock operator starts blowing the horn.

Get the whole crew over there...they discuss, and administer everything correctly. But man, did they look bad in the process. In the locker room after the game they walked in and the first words out of the R's mouth were "What the he!! happened on that play?"

Trying to look good first...where did you get this from?

Agree.
And you would be happier yielding to your partner who called a charge when you KNOW that the defender slid in after the shooter was airborne but your partner couldn't see that from his/her angle?

Who said I would do that?

You did...

If you're working NCAA-W, you don't have a choice if it is in your partner's primary...even if you had a better view of the play and had the correct call.

You made the claim that the two officials get together and make the "correct cal". But in reality, the only decision being made is where the play occured relative to primaries. That determines the call...but it doesn't make it the correct call.

I say communicate with your partner and use one call. I agree with Jeff when he says that communication in this situation often does not require words, especially between veteran officials who have worked together.

The part that is patently ridiculous to me is to reference this one case play and describe it as specific.

"One official calls...........the other official calls..........."

When is call a call? The word call is not defined. I say a foul has not been called until it is reported to the table.

Most seem to think that when conflicting preliminary signals are given, you are stuck with both calls.

WHY???

Nothing that resembles that is written anywhere.

This even opens up the question, when is a signal a signal? Did the one official's hand actually touch the back of his head?
The other guy never actually touched his hips, but he was obviously poised to do so. How much is too much. This, like many other things which happen on the court cannot be absolutely covered by the written word.
I have been guilty in the past of anticipating one thing, starting the wrong signal, then changing to the (perceived) correct one. A mistake? Certainly.
Forbidden by rule? Certainly not.

My partner and I have a double whistle. He correctly sees a charging foul. I am fooled and make the block signal, then realize before I am finished blowing the whistle that he is right. You think I'm gonna report my foul? Not in this lifetime.

And what happens if your partner has signalled that charging foul and you are in the the process of blowing the whistle for a block, which YOU are 100% sure is the correct call and your partner is wrong? Are you NOT going to report your correct foul call? Are you gonna try to over-rule your partner or try to talk him out of his call? Arm wrestle your partner to see which call is gonna be reported?

Do what you want to do, JAR. To everybody else, just follow the applicable rule.

We will talk, briefly, privately. If we are both unwaveringly certain, conceivably
we would report both fouls. But, I would think, 99% of the time, we would go with one call or the other, after considering location of the play, angles involved, and possible obstructions of the view.

Camron, you are 100% wrong. (Well, ok, I didn't make up that statistic.) :)

You are basing your opinion on one of two things - either a lack of understanding of the NCAA-W's mechanic, or a lack of trust in how two officials are taught to handle any double-whistle situation.

Let me ask you how you would handle this play: you are T, I am L. You have a drive start in your primary, going to the basket. There is enough contact at the basket to warrant a foul call, and both of us blow the whistle and hold up a fist. What do you do now?

Geeze guys, just go with a quick rock, paper, scissors and be done with it! You guys could argue with a possum or an opossum, whichever it is. Why don't we argue that one!? ;)

Well, we both know the right answer it to hold the signals and figure out who is going to take the call....by eye contact, discussing it, or whatever and deciding which one is the right call.

But, the discussion is not about that. The discussion is about what to do when both have already signaled with opposite calls. Now that both have done so, the NCAA-W mechanics, if I do understand them correctly, indicate that the call that will be reported/recorded will be the one of the primary official....no discussion/choice.

And that's the part I figured you had incorrect. We would come together just like any other two officials would when they have conflicting signals (block/charge, foul/violation, foul on different players, etc.) on a double-whistle.

Now, what is the NFHS procedure on a double-whistle with conflicting signals, but not a blarge? I'm sure most would say give it up to the primary, because that call is more likely to be correct. But if the secondary has additional information, they would convey that in communicating with the primary official. But it's not 100% the primary's call, "no discussion". In other words, the mechanic for the blarge in NCAA-W is the same as all other levels for other double-whistle situations with or without conflicting signals.

Does the NCAA-W mechanic manual not say that the primary takes the call in the event of a blarge? If so, what is there to discuss aside from where it occurred on the court. If you do anything different, you're not following the mechanic.

Again, a blarge is completly different than all of the other examples you mention. You keep comparing how two different events are handled vs. two opinions of one event. Your argument that they should be handled alike has no merit.

WHERE it occurred on the court is only part of whose primary call it is, and you know that.

Agreed, but isn't the mechanic and discussion solely about who's primary it is, not who actually had the right call?

No...I don't think I have ever been in a double-whistle situation where the discussion was only "Hey, it happened inside the imaginary box on the floor that delineates my primary, not yours."

The discussions have always been along the lines of: "What have you got?" "I've got #42 sliding in under the shooter after she was airborne." "Oh, ok. You take it then."

In my experience the conversation does not take that long in most cases. Or does not need that much explanation.

Peace

That long? That's a 1.5 second conversation...M&M timed it.:D

With arm swings?

Well, count me as misunderstanding the womens's mechanic then. I was under the understanding that the blarge situation was to be resolved by defering to the official who had primary coverage.

While that seems to not be they was it is implemented, how is it actually written?

That is the way it is written...but primary coverage only has so much to do with the area on the floor. And that is where you are reading too much into it.Or maybe not reading enough...the floor coverage stuff in the NCAA-W game is much more "fluid" than in the NCAA-M game where it is more "static".

I'm having trouble thinking of a better way to put it.

I was involved in a blarge at a women's summer camp. We were complimented on the fact that we handled it correctly. I think it is a good example of how the NCAA Women's side wants it called. We were in transition. I was going to L, T didn't get in to a great position, and C had a decent look at the play. C and L had a double whistle, followed by opposing mechanics (yeah, we should have held, but that doesn't always happen). We got together right away, my C said, "you're primary", and I took my blocking foul to the table.

I wasn't happy about having a blarge in a camp situation, but I think it actually helped us out in front of the evaluators that we handled it like we are supposed to according to the women's manual.

I'm hearing two conflicting things in this thread.

Is it determined by primaries or not (regardless of how you define the primary)? Or do you discuss of the play itself and what each person saw?

It IS determined by primaries...but primary is NOT just the area on the floor. It's who is involved, where they came from, etc., etc. Was it a secondary defender who stepped in there? If so, where did that defender come from and who had them?

I know you know all that. So just reading the word "primary" as only the specific area on the floor is not the correct mechanic.

I would like for someone to actually quote how it is written. I'm assuming its in the CCA Manual for NCAA-W.

If both a block and a charge are signalled (emphasis added) on the floor simultaneously, the officials shall get together and agree to give the call to the official who had the play originate in his/her primary. It is important to slow down, have eye contact with partners and not give a preliminary signal when more than one whistle may be involved.

(2009-2010 3.4.7D)

So, the call is, as I've said all along, predetermined based on who has primary coverage (whether it is based on location, origination, secondary defender, etc.). The only discussion is about who had coverage (or at least who should have had coverage) and, even if they were completely wrong, their call stands. The discussion is NOT about who actually saw what but who should have seen what. That is no guarantee that the call will be the correct one. Therefore, I stand by my earlier assertion that the NCAA-W mechanic will still lead to the worst case of being 200% wrong some of the time by getting it completely backwards due to defaulting to the primary official.

For anyone that is actually discussing what each person saw (defender was late, stuck out the knee, etc.), they're not actually following the mechanic but are doing their own thing. Such a thing is not necessarily a bad idea but it is not the defined mechanic.

I guess that's one assumption you can make. The other way to look at it is to realize that we are given definite directives by the supervisors of the conferences we work in, and by the NCAA themselves. I can only speak for supervisors that I have worked for, but the directives they gave us are exactly what I have been explaining to you. If that's "doing things my own way," so be it.

I don't disagree with that approach at all if that is what supervisors want...probably a pretty good approch. But, that is NOT the official NCAA-W mechanic. The claim in this discussion was the the official NCAA-W mechanic, whick is based on primary coverage, was superior. It isn't universally better. The variations that supervisors are making on it probably are.

From the NCAA casebook, A.R. 172
I read this precisely as you and your supervisors read it: try and determine the real action in order not to penalize the innocent.

However, a blarge is still and will ever be an officiating mistake. NCAA-W rules try to avoid charging an inexistent foul, while the other rule sets don't; in some cases the goal may not be reached, of course, but the fault is on the officials who made a mistake by signalling two different fouls on one and the same action.

Ciao

How Can It Be???
 

Well my question has always been....how can you have a blarge? If the defender has position it is a charge...if the defender did not have postion it is a block. How can it be both? I agree that you should defer to whosever primary it was but you know what should realy happen.....get together...decide on one or the other...and move on. Blarge....are you kidding me? Why not call it a Chock??????

The term 'blarge' refers to the calls made by the officials more than what happened on the court.

Be cognizant of your partners whistle(s)... put a fist up... make eye contact... give no prelims... come together if needed... decide what occured first.

Sounds quite simple! I think if 1 of the 2 calling officials follow the proper procedures then its tough to have a blarge.

Had a play the other night, I'm C & the L is rotating strong-side, unfortunately on an immediate drive to the bucket from my PCA :eek:
Double whistle, partner immediately punches as I have a fist up. Of course I had a block as I had the play SDF in my PCA. I just dropped my fist & we discussed it later.
Result: Perhaps an ICC but NO blarge.

And hope that the official not following the proper mechanic has the right call ;)

Well, I saw the "blarge" call last year made by some very experienced and capable NCAA D1 officials, including one who worked the Final Four.

How come you know more than them and you're so much smarter than them, Mr. NCAAREF? And btw, are there any other very plainly written rules that you think D1 Mens and NFHS officials shouldn't be calling ? Just wondering.

Soooooo.....

Even though you're 100% sure that you had the call correct and you're also sure that it WAS your call also , you feel that the proper way to handle the situation is to just go ahead and let your partner make (what to you) was the WRONG call.

Sorry, I can't agree with that philosophy. You HAD a "blarge" and you handled it wrong, by rule(unless you were playing under NCAA Womens rules). Even then, you should have discussed the final call with your parner immediately before taking it to the bench.

The "blarge" procedure was written for a reason. Sure, if everything goes well you shouldn't have one. But officiating isn't a perfect world. It's usually not a bad idea just to follow the rules of the game that you're officiating, instead of making up your own.

JMO.

How did we have a blarge if I never showed?? Maybe you should have asked the that question (in bold) prior to persecuting me, Almight 1 :rolleyes:

How can you discuss something when they punch & fly to the table? Obviously, my partner wasn't aware I had a whistle.
Oh yeah, we take calls to the table round here ;)

I could've swore I followed the rules by putting a fist up, my partner went right to the punch mechanic & well, that was that!!

Are you suggesting that I chase him down to complicate the situation? "Hey I had a block, you showed p/c already, but I'm calling a block as well!"
I dont think so...

Easy There Dinosaur
 

I'm not saying that I think I know more then you or other D1 officials......I follow the rules they way they are written but I don't have to agree with them. My point is and please expound and explain to me how this can be......how can you have a charge and a block at the same time? It is by the rules impossible yet a rule existe to address just that? How can a defender be at a spot yet not be at a spot? How can a ball handler beat a defender to a spot yet not beat a defender to a spot? In my humble opinion the blarge is there to bail out officials because as you seem to believe a D1 officail can't be wrong. Hmmm...I feel so much better about myself now.

We've had this discussion many times; you might try a search to find them.

I don't anyone really agrees that both fouls can actually happen at the same time. You're correct that is there no rule basis for it. It's just that when the two officials do not follow the proper mechanics, and both come out with different preliminary signals on that play, the NFHS and NCAA-M rules committees both decided that in order to make it look like one official isn't "overruling" another, both fouls will have to be reported. It's a way to diffuse a potentially difficult situation by simply charging both fouls, rather than trying to address which call was right, and why you called it against one but taking away the other.

Of course, the easy way to prevent this from ever happening is to follow the correct mechanics and allow the official whose call it is to be the only one to give a preliminary signal and report it to the table.

I got an idea, Mr. NCAAREF. Why don't you ask John Adams those questions? He's in charge of the NCAA Mens ruleset, not me. And that particular ruleset sureashell allows for a "blarge". Please share his response to those questions with us, if it's not too much trouble.

And howinthehell can you say that it is by rule impossible when there IS a rule saying that it sureashell is possible. When did they take "double personal foul" definition out of the NCAA rulebook? And there also is also no rule that I'm aware of that does say it's impossible. Can you cite the rules that will back up that assertation?

Btw, are you an NCAA ref at the D1 level? Just wondering.

You showed a foul signal. You NEVER went to your parner though to make sure that your foul call was the same as his foul call. Au contraire, you freely admit that you thought that your partner screwed-up the call, yet you sat back and did absolutely nothing about it.

You let him report a foul that you thought was wrong. A foul that you also blew your whistle on, signalled a foul and had the opposite call. And you admitted all that too.

If you think that's the right way to handle those situations, well carry on carrying on, Ch!town.

Yellowball forum member and skeptic on this topic, but I thought I had repeatedly read that this is generally what everyone hear preaches. Can someone clarify for me:

I thought the "correct" way was: Both officials come up with a foul but neither divulges their call. They look at each other and one decides to take the call.
A blarge occurs when both officials blow that responsibility by immediately signaling what they have.

If one official blows it and the other doesn't, then it doesn't seem much different from them looking at each other and yielding to the one who didn't blow it.

But I surely misunderstand and can be set straigh.
________
Live Sex Webshows