Simeon (IL) vs DeSoto (TX) Blarge

[tophat67]

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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by tophat67

but ultimately got over ruled by the trail.

So it was not administered correctly as a double foul?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tophat67

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.

...

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

JAR must have been working the game.

[twocentsworth]

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.....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

JAR must have been working the game.

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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. They huddled together....and called the block. Sent the Simeon HS kid/dribbler to the line for two shots......

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.

[APG]

JAR+BLARGE=

[just another ref]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

JAR+BLARGE=

+1000

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

+1,000,000

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

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

[twocentsworth]

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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]."