The Official Forum
Page 8 of 9 « First 67 8 9
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   "blarge call" high school (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/97482-blarge-call-high-school.html)

Adam Wed Mar 12, 2014 06:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 926796)
It means I would see it the same way as I see the backcourt interpretation.
ok

Raymond Wed Mar 12, 2014 08:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 926781)
I talked to a guy at camp. It meant nothing. I talk to guys here every day, which also means nothing. It was a counter to the NOBODY agrees with you statement which I hear so frequently, nothing more.
No it wasn't, it was in response to our questions about asking a governing body about the ruling.

just another ref Wed Mar 12, 2014 09:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 926803)
No it wasn't, it was in response to our questions about asking a governing body about the ruling.
True, and perhaps that was misleading.

I think your answer to why the multiple foul case doesn't matter it probably the most important factor in the whole discussion.

Quote:
Because that is now those who write our checks expect us to call the game.
If that's the single reason why guys feel obligated to go with two fouls here it's easy enough to understand. The one thing that is certain is this doesn't apply to me in this case, so I'm free to follow the rule as I see it.

Raymond Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 926785)
I'm talking about something that says: From the desk of Mary Struckoff
re: caseplay 4.19.8c When and only when the two officials involved come out with conflicting preliminary signals in the play, both fouls must be reported. They may not confer and report a single foul.

If this exists, I'd like to see it, but it wouldn't change my opinion.
Then send an email to Mary Struckoff. You've spent the entire thread acting as if you do not know where these rulings come from.

JRutledge Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 926806)
Then send an email to Mary Struckoff. You've spent the entire thread acting as if you do not know where these rulings come from.
I thought Mary Struckoff had resigned from that position some years ago?

Peace

just another ref Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 926809)
I thought Mary Struckoff had resigned from that position some years ago?

Peace
Editor is a different name in this year's book, another woman, I believe. Don't recall the name off the top of my head.

Rich1 Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:51pm
The key phrase in the interpretation is conflicting preliminary signals

If I signal charge and my partner signals block then we're stuck with both. But this does not mean we can't pregame the blarge out of the game if we all agree to hold the fist and make eye contact or confer before making the call or reporting it. I know most of you know this but the word blarge is a combo of block and charge. If we both signal block or we both signal charge there is no problem. If we both hold our signal until we confer, I also see no problem.
There really is no reason to have a blarge if (as good refs do) we have patient whistles and patient signals.

JRutledge Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 926810)
Editor is a different name in this year's book, another woman, I believe. Don't recall the name off the top of my head.
I believe she retired 2 or 3 years ago.

Peace

Rich Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich1 (Post 926811)
The key phrase in the interpretation is conflicting preliminary signals

If I signal charge and my partner signals block then we're stuck with both. But this does not mean we can't pregame the blarge out of the game if we all agree to hold the fist and make eye contact or confer before making the call or reporting it. I know most of you know this but the word blarge is a combo of block and charge. If we both signal block or we both signal charge there is no problem. If we both hold our signal until we confer, I also see no problem.
There really is no reason to have a blarge if (as good refs do) we have patient whistles and patient signals.
We can say that all we want, but it still can happen to the best of us (I'm not including myself as the best, merely one of us). I've seen D1 guys have them on TV.

Just as important to good eye contact is knowing and blowing in your primary and staying off a foul if it isn't.

Rich1 Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 926813)
We can say that all we want, but it still can happen to the best of us (I'm not including myself as the best, merely one of us). I've seen D1 guys have them on TV.

Just as important to good eye contact is knowing and blowing in your primary and staying off a foul if it isn't.
Agree 100%. If it happens then we have to report both. Hopefully, it doesn't happen to us very often.

Rich Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich1 (Post 926814)
Agree 100%. If it happens then we have to report both. Hopefully, it doesn't happen to us very often.
Once since 1987. Hoping I can extend that streak at least another two games.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Thu Mar 13, 2014 04:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 926785)
I'm talking about something that says: From the desk of Mary Struckoff
re: caseplay 4.19.8c When and only when the two officials involved come out with conflicting preliminary signals in the play, both fouls must be reported. They may not confer and report a single foul.

If this exists, I'd like to see it, but it wouldn't change my opinion.

Just Another Ref:

The sentence in red does not appear in NFHS CB Play 4.19.8 Situation C, nor has it ever appeared in this NFHS CB Play.

MTD, Sr.

BillyMac Thu Mar 13, 2014 06:15am
Whistle ??? What Whistle ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich1 (Post 926811)
If I signal charge and my partner signals block then we're stuck with both. But this does not mean we can't pregame the blarge out of the game if we all agree to hold the fist and make eye contact or confer before making the call or reporting it. If we both signal block or we both signal charge there is no problem. If we both hold our signal until we confer, I also see no problem. There really is no reason to have a blarge if we have patient whistles and patient signals.
Agree 99%, the remaining 1% being related to the last line in Rich1's post and not hearing a partner's whistle, and/or not seeing a partner's signal. As I said in an earlier post, you can pregame the heck out of this and still end up with the casebook play.

OKREF Thu Mar 13, 2014 07:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich1 (Post 926811)
The key phrase in the interpretation is conflicting preliminary signals

If I signal charge and my partner signals block then we're stuck with both. But this does not mean we can't pregame the blarge out of the game if we all agree to hold the fist and make eye contact or confer before making the call or reporting it. I know most of you know this but the word blarge is a combo of block and charge. If we both signal block or we both signal charge there is no problem. If we both hold our signal until we confer, I also see no problem.
There really is no reason to have a blarge if (as good refs do) we have patient whistles and patient signals.
I believe I said this about three pages ago.

just another ref Thu Mar 13, 2014 07:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 926819)
Just Another Ref:

The sentence in red does not appear in NFHS CB Play 4.19.8 Situation C, nor has it ever appeared in this NFHS CB Play.

MTD, Sr.
I realize that. None of this is from the desk of Mary Struckoff, either.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53pm.
Page 8 of 9 « First 67 8 9
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1