"blarge call" high school

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When I say I am an interpreter, perhaps I flatter myself. The title is unofficial and self-proclaimed and I have no authority over anyone, and don't want any. But I am the main one who answers rules questions, at meetings and on the phone. As far as having a question or dispute on this rule, I don't have one anywhere except here. It's never been a problem on the court and I don't expect one. If there has ever been an official ruling on this issue, in my state or any other, I assumed I would have seen it posted here at one time or another. I have not.

You have, ad infinitum, and you're the only one who thinks the case play says anything different.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there has ever been an official ruling on this issue, in my state or any other, I assumed I would have seen it posted here at one time or another. I have not.

Originally Posted by Adam

You have, ad infinitum, and you're the only one who thinks the case play says anything different.

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.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

If I'm guilty, I want you on the jury...since I know you will ignore all fact and reason, because nothing will change your opinion. If I am the victim, I pray that you never get near the case.

You are the person to whom the NFHS is talking when it says that individual feelings must not be substituted for the rules, case plays and interpretations.

In case you haven't seen it, here are two points (verbatim from the 2010-11 Points of Emphasis) that you would do well to learn:

• Personal interpretations of the rules by individual officials have a negative impact on the game.
• Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

If I'm guilty, I want you on the jury...since I know you will ignore all fact and reason, because nothing will change your opinion. If I am the victim, I pray that you never get near the case.

You are the person to whom the NFHS is talking when it says that individual feelings must not be substituted for the rules, case plays and interpretations.

In case you haven't seen it, here are two points (verbatim from the 2010-11 Points of Emphasis) that you would do well to learn:

• Personal interpretations of the rules by individual officials have a negative impact on the game.
• Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game.

On the contrary, if ANYTHING, ANYWHERE was written about what must be done because of a signal, I would be the first one in line.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

On the contrary, if ANYTHING, ANYWHERE was written about what must be done because of a signal, I would be the first one in line.

Then what did you mean here?

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

For the record, I don't recall if you've offered an alternative opinion on what exactly this case play is meant to cover if you don't think it covers what everyone else says it does.

Occam's Razor, as well as the "When it's you against the world" theory, make it pretty clear to me.

Now, if no one cares what should be done where you are, fine, just realize that your area would be isolated on this issue if that's the case.

I once had a fellow official question the ruling in a pregame. He had brought it up in disbelief after having been told by another official. When I showed him the case play, he conceded the point.

It's really clear unless you don't want it to be.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Then what did you mean here?

I meant a declaration like that one with a name on it is something I have never seen and would like to see if it exists.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I meant a declaration like that one with a name on it is something I have never seen and would like to see if it exists.

Sorry, let me be more specific.

What did you mean by this?

Originally Posted by just another ref

....but it wouldn't change my opinion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

[Rich1]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rich1

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by Rich1

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.