Simeon (IL) vs DeSoto (TX) Blarge
 

I couldn't find a video online anywhere on the blarge in the Simeon vs. DeSoto game last night. The lead had a charge while the trail had a block. It clearly looked like a charge and it was right in front of the lead official, but ultimately got over ruled by the trail.

Did anyone see this play? If you did, what was your thought on it?

So it was not administered correctly as a double foul?

So you are saying that they went with a Block and ignored the Lead's call?

JAR must have been working the game.

On a drive from FT line extended-area, the dribbler and secondary defender had contact on the low-block/FT lane line.

The Lead signaled charge. The Trail had a block. It looked like neither knew the other had a call until they both tried to report the fouls. The huddled together....and called the block. Sent the Simeon HS kid/dribbler to the line for two shots......

It was certainly and "interesting" way to execute coverage areas, call the play, and administer the penalty.....:)

Nobody overruled anybody. Nobody ignored/set aside anything. They conferred and came out with the call.

Somebody show me ANYTHING written in NFHS rules which says you can't do this.

JAR+BLARGE=http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/angry/bang-head-on-wall.gif

4-19: A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.

The charging foul was neither charged nor penalized. There was no charging foul.

A guy made a signal which he realized was wrong.

It means nothing.

+1000

Peace

You must have the one book that has a misprint or is missing a page.

Let's just finish this off right now.

This is the part where everyone just points you to the case book play. You then might try and nitpick about something about when signals are signals or since when are signals binding...at which people everyone will ignore you again.

To date, this "nitpicking" has been disputed only by "just cuz."

When you have no actual evidence, that's what you do, you ignore the question.

+1,000,000

Peace

Nah, people tend to ignore debates where there is none...

But hey, by all means, go ahead and continue your one man crusade.

So let me see if I understand this JAR...I can blow my whistle, signal a violation/rules infraction, confer with my partner, and simply change my mind/partner can overrule me?

Coach: "you blew the whistle & signaled!"
Me: "you're right. It was in my primary 2ft from me, but my partner says we can't call that foul on the other teams' best player...that would be his 5th."
Coach: WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
Me: "Coach, doesn't matter if I signaled it. It's NOTHING til I report it."

I guess I understand it better now.

Not that I agree with JAR on anything blarge related, there are plenty of scenarios where one "blow[s] [the] whistle, signal[s] a violation/rules infraction, confer[s] with [a] partner, and simply change [one's] mind/partner [overrules]."

Your partner cannot overrule you, that is certain. 2-6

Other than that, as far as I know we all agree that, yes, an official can blow his whistle and make a signal, then for whatever reason, report a different infraction or no infraction at all,

EXCEPT IN THIS SITUATION.

My question is why is this situation different than any other. This question has never been answered.

It has, you just didn't find the answer satisfactory.

The answer I recall is (paraphrasing) "Because of the case play. Even though that's not what it says, that's what they meant."

If that's the answer you mean, you're right, it's not satisfactory.

It's exactly what it says, according to everyone but you. I can never remember if you refuse to believe it means what everyone says it means or if you just want to insist they shouldn't do it that way.

Actually, perhaps the biggest problem I have with the universal interpretation is when it is not applied.

"One official calls a blocking foul............the other official calls a charging foul."


Me: It says calls, not signals. Not the same thing.

Everybody else: A signal is a call. That's what it means.


BUT, if the signal (call) made by the first official is only a fist, without a preliminary signal, that call/signal doesn't matter.

The guy signaled (called) a foul, the same as the other guy. He knows what his call was, but now it doesn't matter.

Why?

How about this? In your games you insist that your crew do it your way. And if you happen to join a new conference/association you tell the supervisor that hired you that you will not allow blarges in your games.

Actually, all of those typically come down to which action happened first, not two different opinions on the same play.

On a side note...had a non-blarge in my game Friday night. As L, drive came from T's area...crash right in front of me. I hit the whistle and yell block and T is coming in yelling offense...he comes to me and asks me if I saw the offensive player shove off with his left arm...said that I had not and told him to take it to the table...he did...caught no grief from anyone.

So to ask the question again...the case play says one official "called" this, other "called" that...so at what point has something been "called"?

And with that being said, in my area and the college conferences I work for this certainly would be the case. But it was a joke and not meant to be serious. Honestly I cannot think anyone is seriously debating this issue anyway when the rules and casebook have made this rather clear. And to debate that should be a bigger issue of maturity.

Peace

My other option was to lock it. Let's keep it civil.

There, it's not just me, now. Somebody answer him, please.

If what you took was out of line, then you might as well close the thread. I thought that exchange was very civil. We have a person that thinks what is in the casebook is not real and honestly is the only person I have ever had a conversation that wanted to believe under NF rules that this procedure is flawed. And we all know that there are more than rules that keep people from being hired. Honestly all of what I said was in jest.

Peace

I know, Jeff. I just thought the other stuff was over the top.

Doesn't change my point...which was we use that process all the time for other type of situations. The big issue is they just plainly ignored an easy and straight forward rule/procedure.

There's no new information out that's going to change anyone's mind on this.

Can't we just link to the other threads that have all the information and points on both sides and close it?

Every supervisor I work for says we have to eat the Blarge once 2 conflicting preliminary signals are given. I've never attended I formal clinic that tells us to do otherwise.

So for me it's very easy. Just by coincidence, tonight I will be working for the 2nd time with the only official I've ever had a Blarge with. That was about 3-4 seasons ago. Neither one of us suffered b/c of that call. :rolleyes::cool:

So it is the preliminary signal that constitutes "calling" a foul? At least as far as your supervisors go?

I am ok with that...but can also see JAR's point...

In my situation, neither of us signaled anything, we both just verbalized what we had and then realized the other guy had something different.

I have had the same partner for about 8 years now. In our two man games if we have a double whistle, which usually happens in the lane, if a double whistle occurs the lead takes the call. I as trail know to go with closed fist and to not automatically signal a block or charge. If the lead has a whistle it is his foul. Knock in wood, we haven't had a blarge ever.

This is a new question. Does verbalizing the conflicting calls obligate them to go with both? I don't see why that wouldn't be the same as conflicting signals.

Maybe because the casebook is clear?

Why are you really having an issue with this obvious situation?

Peace

I would hope not. Verbal communication is a useful tool to help manage games effectively.

I honestly think it depends on how it's verbalized. If you're informing each other, then no. If you're yelling it out as a preliminary indicator, then maybe.

That said, I can sympathize with jar's questions, except for the fact that every supervisor, trainer, and coordinator I've ever heard of interprets this the same way. Also, the contrast with the NCAA-W ruling makes it even more obvious. Attempts to argue your way out of this ruling pretty much end there, cause you know what they say about when it's you against the world.

Agreed.

The casebook specifically mentions neither signals nor a verbal indication, so they seem to me to be on equal footing.

How do you differentiate between those two things?

That seems to me and others that is the problem right here. ;)

Peace

The same way I differentiate between intelligenl discourse and garbage.

What do you tell your supervisor(s)?

None of this has ever come up.

So your supervisors don't know that in your games you will not allow blarges?

I think you need to be a trailblazer and let them know your thoughts how things should be done in your area. :D

Our varsity assignor is not so much a supervisor as a dispatcher. When we have rule discussions at meetings, I usually am the one who has the last word. (scary, huh?)

I see this as a non-issue. The only way a blarge and this case play will get my attention is if they are a part of a study guide or test question.