"blarge call" high school

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It has nothing to do with who is "right". It has everything to do with who's primary area the play is in...are there a few gray areas? Sure. But those conversations, in my experience, do not take very long.

They don't at that level because the officials are experienced and know the repercussions of getting into a long, drawn out discussion over it. They know that settling it quickly (regardless of whether they come out with a block or a charge) is the right thing for the game and for their credibility. They're embarrassed enough at that point.

Now, let's consider how this could play out in a HS game with officials who would actually argue about the call or be obstinate and get into a long discussion about this. How would THEY resolve things? Flip a coin?

At higher levels and in my games (because I feel I'm adequately aware of perception and its importance) I'm certain we could handle this the NCAAW way. I'm not sure about the garden variety freshman/JV game, though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

They don't at that level because the officials are experienced and know the repercussions of getting into a long, drawn out discussion over it. They know that settling it quickly (regardless of whether they come out with a block or a charge) is the right thing for the game and for their credibility. They're embarrassed enough at that point.

Now, let's consider how this could play out in a HS game with officials who would actually argue about the call or be obstinate and get into a long discussion about this. How would THEY resolve things? Flip a coin?

At higher levels and in my games (because I feel I'm adequately aware of perception and its importance) I'm certain we could handle this the NCAAW way. I'm not sure about the garden variety freshman/JV game, though.

I totally disagree it is right for the game. You choose someone is going to suggest why you choose one call over the other. The fact that you give it to both and no one is going to be happy IMO is better as you are not just giving it to someone over the other and you will try to avoid the situation all together. That is also why it does not happen very often IMO. It happens, but not even once a season for most officials. I have had some situations where you could suggest it might have happen, but it was avoided. Just because you pick one of the calls does not mean someone is not going to be very happy or that they will not question the motives of the individuals making the decision.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just because you pick one of the calls does not mean someone is not going to be very happy or that they will not question the motives of the individuals making the decision.

I don't understand how this wouldn't apply to every other call in the game. Someone is ALWAYS unhappy.

[just another ref]

This question has never been answered. I'll try again. How does anybody read this case play and say that a preliminary signal is the key to what must be done? Previously the wording was "one official calls one thing and the other calls something else." The argument was that, while poorly worded, the signal constitutes a call. A fist in the air is a signal, so is it not also a call? Yet the consensus seems to be that if you have just a fist and your partner reports the opposite you have no obligation to do anything. Why not? You made a call, too. Furthermore, now the word is "rules" instead of "calls". A ruling can be made with or without a signal of any kind, and certainly one can mistakenly signal one thing and then come out with the opposite ruling.


If the answer to all this is "The wording of the case play does not adequately reflect the ultimate result which was desired by the committee and/or my superiors so I will continue to follow this line of thought even though I may or may not agree with the premise," somebody tell me and I'll never bring it up again.

Meanwhile, no superior of mine has ever brought up this situation and even if I believe that was the intention of the committee I see no reason not to treat this like many of us have chosen to treat the now infamous backcourt interpretation of a few years ago...........or, I wouldn't call a ten second violation on a free throw shooter (others have said this, not me)..........or, I NEVER call three seconds, and some others we could name.

[APG]

Keep fighting the good fight JAR

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Keep fighting the good fight JAR

All by himself.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This question has never been answered. I'll try again. How does anybody read this case play and say that a preliminary signal is the key to what must be done? Previously the wording was "one official calls
one thing and the other calls something else. The argument was that, while poorly worded, the signal constitutes a call. A fist in the air is a signal, so is it not also a call? Yet the consensus seems to be that if you have just a fist and your partner reports the opposite you have no obligation to do anything. Why not? You made a call, too. Furthermore, now the word is "rules" instead of "calls". A ruling can be made with or without a signal of any kind, and certainly one can mistakenly signal one thing and then come out with the opposite ruling.


If the answer to all this is "The wording of the case play does not adequately reflect the ultimate result which was desired by the committee and/or my superiors so I will continue to follow this line of thought even though I may or may not agree with the premise," somebody tell me and I'll never bring it up again.

Meanwhile, no superior of mine has ever brought up this situation and even if I believe that was the intention of the committee I see no reason not to treat this like many of us have chosen to treat the now infamous backcourt interpretation of a few years ago...........or, I wouldn't call a ten second violation on a free throw shooter (others have said this, not me)..........or, I NEVER call three seconds, and some others we could name.

Did you cut and paste this? LOL.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Did you cut and paste this? LOL.

I think he has this is a Word file and waiting for times like this.

Peace

[just another ref]

Like I said, this part never gets answered.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I totally disagree it is right for the game. You choose someone is going to suggest why you choose one call over the other. The fact that you give it to both and no one is going to be happy IMO is better as you are not just giving it to someone over the other and you will try to avoid the situation all together. That is also why it does not happen very often IMO. It happens, but not even once a season for most officials. I have had some situations where you could suggest it might have happen, but it was avoided. Just because you pick one of the calls does not mean someone is not going to be very happy or that they will not question the motives of the individuals making the decision.

Peace

I'd rather have the right call made. That said, I've had one blarge in my career and it was a situation where the T reached where he had no business reaching.

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't understand how this wouldn't apply to every other call in the game. Someone is ALWAYS unhappy.

The funny thing about the blarge is that *nobody* ends up happy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't understand how this wouldn't apply to every other call in the game. Someone is ALWAYS unhappy.

My position is not whether someone is unhappy. My position and you added something to the call like making it clear someone is choosing one over another.

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd rather have the right call made. That said, I've had one blarge in my career and it was a situation where the T reached where he had no business reaching.

The funny thing about the blarge is that *nobody* ends up happy.

That assumes that we pick the right one. I do not see how choosing makes the call "right" or that the other official had it totally incorrect. We see when only one whistle is blown how an official gets that play wrong. The remedy is not to be in that situation at all. But that does not mean we still will not have disagreements, but the rules make it a bigger issue if we both signal. I have no problem with the way the NF or NCAAM has it. And if they changed it to what NCAAW do, I would not be totally happy. NCAAW IMO have a bigger problem because they tend to not stop the clock for much of anything.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd rather have the right call made. That said, I've had one blarge in my career and it was a situation where the T reached where he had no business reaching.



The funny thing about the blarge is that *nobody* ends up happy.

It's a little easier, though, when you start your explanation with, "by rule...."