Blarge in the Wisconsin/PSU game

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it was block vs. charge, yes. But not if one of the fouls is illegal use of hands or push.

Huh? One official signaled a player control foul, the other a block -- both were for the same contact. Clearly square in the wheelhouse of having to go with a double foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Huh? One official signaled a player control foul, the other a block -- both were for the same contact. Clearly square in the wheelhouse of having to go with a double foul.

Didn't see the play....if that is what you're referring to. It may well have been.

I'm commenting on the general case....

The case that establishes the ruling under discussion says that when a charge and a block are called, it is automatically a double foul. It doesn't say player control and a block.

A "charge" is a specific type of foul that is the direct counterpart to a block....where the contact results from one player running into the other and the foul is normally charged to one or the other based on who is responsible for the contact. It is a charge whether the player has the ball or not and need not be a player control foul at all.

The case doesn't cover any other type of player control foul (hold, illegal use of hands, push, etc.). For that matter, a player with player control could actually be guilty of a block in some cases where the defender is the one at risk of charging (think screening).

If one official calls a foul on a shooter for illegal use of hands for clearing out while the other calls a block for having a knee extended, those are two independent fouls. It may result in a double foul, but it is not because of the case.

[APG]

I agree with Camron's take on the blarge. The blarge is a block vs. charge play. It just usually happens that the player has the ball. We don't see blarges on other block vs. charge plays because those are off ball and usually only one official is watching that action.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Didn't see the play....if that is what you're referring to. It may well have been.

I'm commenting on the general case....

The case that establishes the ruling under discussion says that when a charge and a block are called, it is automatically a double foul. It doesn't say player control and a block.

A "charge" is a specific type of foul that is the direct counterpart to a block....where the contact results from one player running into the other and the foul is normally charged to one or the other based on who is responsible for the contact. It is a charge whether the player has the ball or not and need not be a player control foul at all.

The case doesn't cover any other type of player control foul (hold, illegal use of hands, push, etc.). For that matter, a player with player control could actually be guilty of a block in some cases where the defender is the one at risk of charging (think screening).

If one official calls a foul on a shooter for illegal use of hands for clearing out while the other calls a block for having a knee extended, those are two independent fouls. It may result in a double foul, but it is not because of the case.

I think that you've made some good points here. In this case it was a blarge, no doubt.