"blarge call" high school

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Because I assure you, sir - the opinion you're expressing (all alone, I might add) here is contrary to those heard from clinicians and interpretors the rest of the country over.

I don't doubt that, but consider a couple of things. The meat of the discussion here is always all about opinions and interpretations because the case play alone doesn't even come close to saying what is for some reason considered holy. There is nothing about signals. There is nothing which says one official cannot change his ruling. The only thing definitive in this case is what you do when this fiasco is called. Count the basket, point of interruption, etc.

Then, turn to the next page in the book. There is a case play about multiple fouls. It has no gray areas at all. B1 and B2 both foul A1. Your report both fouls and shoot x number of free throws. period Yet everybody here, including me, says pick one and report it. This case play is not important at all, because?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think a few posters are taking JAR's "I asked a guy at camp" defense too literally.

The point is that JAR asked a guy what his common sense told him. His argument is an appeal to common sense. Common sense tells use a block/charge play is either a block or a charge (in varying degrees). If there is a close play the mechanics manual doesn't tell us to rule a double foul to cover all our bases, it tells us to make the call as best we can (by deferring, PCA, etc.). It does make common sense to gather and decide on one or the other, and that's the argument JAR was appealing to.

"Common sense" doesn't sign any of my checks. Each one of my college supervisors and both of my HS assignors expect their officials to adjudicate "blarges" by reporting 2 fouls to the table. Sitting here debating us ad naseum is not going to get JAR the answer he is looking for. Who cares what a bunch of anonymous Internet officials say when you have the option of getting a definitive ruling from your governing bodies?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think a few posters are taking JAR's "I asked a guy at camp" defense too literally.

The point is that JAR asked a guy what his common sense told him. His argument is an appeal to common sense. Common sense tells use a block/charge play is either a block or a charge (in varying degrees). If there is a close play the mechanics manual doesn't tell us to rule a double foul to cover all our bases, it tells us to make the call as best we can (by deferring, PCA, etc.). It does make common sense to gather and decide on one or the other, and that's the argument JAR was appealing to.

None of us could use that standard and expect to be taken seriously. Even at a camp you have to know who is talking to you. Not everyone is in a position to require you to do much of anything. And not only do we already have a ruling, it is in writing in the casebook of both bodies in which I work.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...This case play is not important at all, because?

Because that is now those who write our checks expect us to call the game.

And are we supposed to believe that you officiate in a state where there has never been a "blarge" reported to the table? B/c that what all you posts are saying since you say you'll never have to worry about it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even at a camp you have to know who is talking to you.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Because that is now those who write our checks expect us to call the game.

That is what this is all about. Only thing my assignor ever told me not to call was a T for plane violations on a throw-in, referring to it as a "two bit call." And this was in response to a complaint from a coach after a loss. This was a direct instruction from a superior, but it had no basis in the rules. I'm saying that must be what we're dealing with here, I simply don't understand why/how any interpretation was twisted in this direction.

And are we supposed to believe that you officiate in a state where there has never been a "blarge" reported to the table?

There may have been a dozen this week, but I personally have never seen or heard of one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

But you mentioned that conversation here as it relates to this issue. I have talked to a lot of people at camps, but I do not come here and mention them in the case of a rules interpretation. And like said by others, you have a way to get an answer to your question. IMO you have not accepted that fact and are acting like you have support for your position. This situation is clearly in writing and has been that way for some time now. If you want real clarification, then take it up with your state people. And even be careful about that as they might reference what everyone else here has referenced is the proper interpretation to this situation.

A long time ago I asked for an interpretation based off of a discussion we largely had here and was given one interpretation. When it was later found out there was some previous interpretations, the interpretation changed from the person I originally had asked their "opinion" on the matter.

Peace

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Have you ever considered that there might be a reason you hear that so frequently? Think about it.

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sorry, let me be more specific.

What did you mean by this?

It means I would see it the same way as I see the backcourt interpretation.