This one will make JAR happy
 

New case book play involving the restricted area.

A.R. 122. As A2 makes a drive to the basket, B1, a secondary defender, establishes his initial guarding position within the restricted area. Contact occurs. One official calls a charge while another official calls a block.

RULING: B1 was a secondary defender who illegally established his initial guarding position within the restricted area. Consequently, the blocking call against B1 is the correct call. (Rule 4-61 and 10-1.12)

Here's one situation where you won't go with the blarge...this is also how the NBA handles blarges involving the RA/lower defensive box.

I didn't think this was ever in question...this is not a judgement call as long as everyone agree the player is the "secondary defender". The contact is (and was), by rule, a block. The player either was or was not inside the restricted area.

Why would this play be any different? It's still just a difference of opinion. Apparently the official who called the charge thought the defender wasn't in the restricted area or he wouldn't have made that call. Confer, and come out with one, hopefully correct, call. Sounds good to me.

Nice BS assessment. How about apparently the official who called a charge didn't see the defenders left foot in the RA?

They are either in the RA or they are not in the RA. Just like the shooter is either on the 3 point line or they are not. Not much wiggle room on plays like this. That is why it is different and not changed in other aspects of the rule.

Peace

As the others have said, this is not a matter of judgement. If one officials sees a foot on the line, the player was on the line....there is no discussion....same as a 2-point vs. 3-point shot. It is a block by rule.