jar thinks the case play means both officials are stubborn and refuse to come to a consensus. jar is the only one here who thinks this. This discussion will go nowhere. Again.

No internet for five days, other than my phone. This thread comes at this question from a slightly different angle than others. The calling official gives a signal which he immediately realizes is a mistake and would like to change. Picture this: I anticipate a block, then the defender gets in position quicker than I thought possible, resulting in a clear charge. I see the play, but my hands don't get the memo in time. I mistakenly signal the block preliminary, then immediately realize the error. I go to the table and report the charge. All this is okay, unless there was a double whistle and my partner gave the charge signal all the way, in which case we must report a double foul?

I would like to know the intent and purpose of this rule.

I have no problem going with a charge in this situation since the "calling" official's intent was to call a charge and he gave an incorrect signal.

In the Blarge scenario you are always arguing about, there is no mistaken signal given. One officials sees a charge, the other sees a block. In NCAA-W by rule you go with PCA. In NFHS, NBA, and NCAA-M you go with a double foul.

The trouble with this is that a mistaken signal and an intended signal can look (can be) exactly alike. It's not about appearance? Apparently it is to most, if not all, since conflicting preliminary signals are what makes a blarge a blarge.

If intent has anything to do with it, why do we never have a blarge simply with two fists in the air. Both guys know what their intent was.

You already know the answer to that, you just simply refuse to acknowledge and/or accept it.

You also seem to lack any confidence in the integrity of any official involved in a blarge.

What does integrity have to do with any of this?