"blarge call" high school
 

Last night in a "block/charge" situation occured with the player on offense converting the basket. The official underneath the basket initially called a block. Official behind the play called a huddle, they then went to the scorers table and called a double foul, took the basket off of the scoreboard and awarded the ball to the team that was on defense via alternating posession arrow.

it is my understanding that since the bucket was good that the basket should have stood with both players being charged with a foul and the team on defense getting the ball underneath the basket with the ability to run the baseline.

Some have said this rule may be different using nfhs rules.

Sad thing is, this call was made with 1 minute left in regulation. Team that made the bucket but had it taken away would have gone up 6. they ended up losing in overtime.

Any guidance on how to apply this rule would be helpful.
Thanks,

You are correct.

*4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official rules a blocking foul on B1 and the other official rules a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.

RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

Where did you pull that from? I'd like to have a link to that please.

This is a double foul and the foul by the offensive player should not make the ball dead, as it would in a regular PC. The basket should count and the ball put in play at the POI, which in this case is B's ball with the privileged of running the endling.

He pulled it from the case book. The numbers before the case should tell you where to find it as the book goes in sequential order. Are you not an official?

Had the try been started before the foul(s)? Had the ball been released?

That depends on whether it is released or not before the foul. If so, count the basket and POI (throwin for B). If not, the ball is dead, no basket, POI (throwin for A).

In neither case would you go to the arrow, though.

In neither of those cases, true. But if the try was released but unsuccessful, you would go with the arrow.

And this is why I pregame "blarges" out of my games because we all know that by rule a blarge is impossible: Either the Defensive Player has obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA/FIBAp a LGP or he/she has not. A Defensive Player cannot have both a LGP and non-LGP simultaneously, :eek:.

This is one aspects of the rules that NCAA Women's gets it correct via its CCA Manual.

MTD, Sr.

So you'd rather effectively flip a coin before the game to decide who is right?

I think he's rather simply call it correctly ... the blarge is like a tie in baseball - doesn't really happen. And calling a blarge is like asking yourself, "Did the defender have LGP" and answering, "I don't know," and ruling accordingly.

Just curious what the CCA Manual state? Does it require the officials to confer and make a determination?

Yes.

MTD, Sr.

Camron:

A good pregame involves PCAs and how to handle plays coming from one PCA and going into another PCA. I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that "blarges" happen more often in games officiated with three-man crews as opposed to two-man crews.

MTD, Sr.

He's a fan from Kentucky.

Agree with this but sometimes stuff happens, i.e. somebody screws up.

It requires the officials to determine whose primary area the call is in, and then go with that official's judgement on the play.

The problem with that is that there are several situations that still don't fit the protocols....plays where the foul is right on the border of the two areas and the play was neither moving towards or away from one of them but right along the boundary.

And even if you work that out, it doesn't unsure that the call is right. 50% of the time, it will penalize the wrong team/player. At least with the blarge, it is largely offsetting and since the officials initially disagreed, this seems to be the most equitable and fair.

There is nothing in the NFHS rule book which would lead one to arrive at this call. There is nothing in the NFHS case book which says that the two officials cannot confer and come out with a single call.

Maybe you should just pregame bad calls out of your game. Then even if there's a double whistle, you'll have same call.

:rolleyes:

Right on time.

You're wrong, in that you're the only one I know (anywhere) who says the case book doesn't mean what you don't think it means.

Also, there's no better explanation for what the case means by "calls" that makes sense.

You win this thread. :)

I know in my part of Rome if there is a double whistle on a block/charge it belongs to the person it is going towards, in other words it is the lead. This is extensively covered in pregame. Also why we give the closed fist first. If I'm the trail and my partner and I have a double whistle on this type of play, as soon as I see his fist in the air mine goes down

A good pregame regarding who takes what play will help reduce blarges.

Proper Mechanics- whistle, holding your fist up in the air and eye contact with your partner should eliminate blarges.

Here's how you prevent 98% of blarges.

Stop cracking your whistle on plays that are not yours. It's really kind of simple.

Actually, it now says "rules" instead of calls, which seems to take the preliminary signal even more out of the equation, if that were possible.

Nice on paper, but not in the real world. Most of them happen because both officials usually have good reason to believe it is theirs. When exactly does a rotating secondary defender become a primary defender?

So on a play in an area of intersection the officials should...?

As was mentioned, the way to avoid them - all of them - is keep the fist up but don't make a preliminary signal.

I had one of these in my GV game (NCAAW 3-person mechanics) last week. I'm L on a semi-fast break. Crash takes place in the lane but on C's half. I wait a beat since my C was recovering to get to her area. I blow my whistle and raise my fist then I hear her whistle and I freeze. I look at her and yell "take it" since I know it's her primary and she calls the PC (which is what I had). It was a little clumsy because of the delay and Team A's HC wasn't thrilled, especially since his team was down 25, but the next time I was in front of him I quietly explained that it looked awkward but I stopped because I heard another whistle.

belong to the official whose area the play is moving into.

And when it is moving right along the line between the areas and not into or out of either area?

First one to the table.

If this little mini-event was the only time blarge was called, then we wouldn't really have an issue - and the purpose for the "Tie goes to the nobody" rule here would make sense.

But it's not. It's used as a "Gee, I don't know" call FAR too often.

And sometimes the drive starts and ends in your area and your partner has a late whistle and signal you don't even hear or see. :(

Yes, that is an infrequent event but deciding which side of the line it happened on when it is a more typical situation is just as much a judgement call as the call itself. No matter how you slice it, any call near the change of primaries will be subject to double whistles. Short of restraint in making the call, you'll always have cases where the officials disagree and even disagree about who's primary it was really in. One has a charge, one has a block. Each claim it was in their primary, what do you do then?

No matter how you try to resolve this based on PCA's, it will always be flawed because there can be debate about where it actually occurred. And even if you fix that, it is still flawed because there is no guarantee that he one you default was the right one....probably about 50% chance.

I think it is better to stick both with a foul rather than the wrong one while the one that really deserved it gets nothing.

Often? I've had exactly one of these in my career. One. In a summer game.

I left 2% for a reason

I think that we can divide this debate into two separate discussions:

1) The rule that defines Guarding.

2) How do we handle double whistles in general and a "blarge" in particular.


Discussion (1) is the easy discussion. We just know from our office in an "ivy covered, academic tower" that a "blarge" cannot exist. By rule there cannot be a "blarge". B-1 has either obtained (NFHS)/established (NCAA/FIBA) a LGP before contact between A-1 and B-1 occurs, or B-1 has not obtained/established a LGP.

Discussion (2) is about how we make our "big bucks" in the trenches when officiating a real game and not discussing hypothetical situations.

Double whistles are going to happen but hopefully we can keep them to a minimum. How we handle double whistles depends to some degree is determined by whether the game is a two-man crew of a three-man crew. They have two different philosophies to some degree. Two-man: It means that the vast majority of the time there should be one pair of eyes officiating on the ball and one pair of eyes officiating off the ball. Three-man: It means ,that depending upon position of the ball: there can be two pairs of eyes officiating on the ball and one pair of eyes officiating off the ball, OR, there can be one pair of eyes officiating on the ball and two pairs officiating of the ball.

The vast of majority of us have attended enough camps and we know that there are as many theories as to how to handle double whistles as there are camps.

I am not going to comment on the ways to handle double whistles that have been mentioned in the thread; but having a good pre-game goes a long way in reducing double whistles and how to handle the few double whistles that happen in one's game.

My concern in this thread is that the double whistle is a "blarge". The NFHS and NCAA Men's committees have given us, which in my humble (:p) opinion a very unsatisfactory way to handle such a situation. While the NCAA Women's Committee recognizes (I will refrain from any snarky remarks, :D.) that by rule a "blarge" cannot happen and gives us guidelines as to how to solve the problem.

As a student of the rules of the game, it just makes my skin crawl, when I think of how the NFHS and the NCAA Men's committees want us to handle a "blarge". Their solution is not logical; it is not rational; nor can it be defended by rule. And everybody knows how I feel about interpretations that cannot be defended by rule, :p.

I have a story about a "blarge" that occurred in a boys' H.S. varsity game in Michigan about twenty years ago, but this post has gone on long enough.

MTD, Sr.

I may take you up on this bet. Depending on the conversion rate of dollars TO donuts.

Don't Hear Partner's Whistle ...
 

That's the absolute worst situation with a double whistle. I've had a couple of these over the years. I don't hear my partner's whistle. I sell my call with a strong preliminary signal, and all of a sudden, as the players part like the Red Sea, I see my partner also giving a preliminary signal. Luckily, we've always had the same signal. Someday the signals won't be the same. We could pregame the heck out of this situation, but the bottom line would be that we would have go to the caseplay.

A few years ago, I had one like this, except we both reported without the other's knowledge.

I was C, table side, and A1 charges into B1 just outside the paint on my side, right along the endline. I ship it the other way. Neither of us heard the other's whistle, and he came out from L, opposite, and reported as I was turning around to report from within a few feet of my C position.

We got lucky, in that we both reported the same foul. Only later did our third come up and inform us that we had both reported that foul.

Only one I ever had, partner and I had opposite signals. I didn't see his, but he saw mine. He dropped his hands and walked away. Coach saw it and asked him: "What did y'all do, flip a coin?" Partner explained that it was my call. End of discussion.

I wrote that sentence without having my brain connected to my fingers. What I should have said is:

That I would bet dollars to donuts that there are more double whistles in a three-man game than there in a two-man game because of court coverage, but that there are more "blarges" called in a two-man game because more often that not double whistles in two-man games are the result of officials who are ball watchers.

But you can still have a dozen donuts on me at the nearest Tim Horton's, :D.

MTD, Sr.

MTDS, you can be a snarky as you want. Just keep that "not logical" line in there about NFHS/NCAAM and I'm good. :D :D

I had one in a junior college game a few years ago. T called a charge on a play that was in the paint (I was the L - it was mine all day and twice Sunday) and was the most obvious block one could ever see.

When I looked in the direction of the C a few seconds after the double foul was reported, he started laughing and couldn't stop for a few minutes.

double foul?
 

MTD,

Do you also believe that you can't have a "double foul" by rule? The rules committee has decided that the fouls were personal fouls committed against each other. I'm not saying that it is a better rule than the Women's, but the case book play makes it a rule.

Also, the camps that I have been to lately encourage double whistles instead of trying to avoid them. Admittedly, the camp is heavily influenced by Women's officials but a lack of a whistle in the lane will prompt the clinician to ask "why didn't you have a whistle on that play?"

Then throw the NBA in there also, since their rules allow for blarges also.

To me, a blarge is nothing more than a double foul, except called by 2 different officials, rather than one. I've only been involved in the one blarge call, and it didn't involve a collision. Dual-coverage area between L & T, T (me) calls a PC for A1 extending arm and pushing off, L calls block for B1 contacting A1 with a knee outside of his normal stance.

I'm new here and without nearly the experience of many of the posters, so take that into consideration, but I think MTD's point is that a blarge is NOT a double fou. A double foul is 2 players can simultaneously (or nearly so) making illegal contact to each other. A blarge, however, is a single contact RULED differently by 2 different officials. Either a block occurred; or a PC foul occurred. Not both. One needs to be called. Not both. If a blarge were a "double foul," it COULD be called by one official.



That IS a double foul. NOT a blarge. (I think)

I've been personally involved in exactly one as well.

I've seen others (mainly JV guys) involved in several a year - most of which were just bad calls.

Was this in the UHA-Henderson game? If so what I heard was they did not know if the ball went in the basket? They should have went to the arrow? Looks like someone should have know if the ball went in the basket as they could have asked the scorekeeper?

Would it have made any difference if the shooter had missed the shot?:eek:

Since you didn't quote anything, it's hard to know to which play you are referring, but in the OP, yes, it would have made a difference.

The correct ruling for the OP was given early in the thread.

A blarge is a double foul with one official calling a PC foul, and one calling a block. That's what happened on my play.

My personal feelings are that a BLARGE can not happen. The officials should get together and come to a conclusion on one or the other. Having a blarge IMO is the easy way out. But there is a very specific caseplay with instructions for what to do that must be followed. IMO they got it wrong and should look at the NCAA-W way of handling it.

You cannot have a BLOCK AND a CHARGE on the same play.

We had this happen in a game last week in a packed gym. Shooting foul, ball goes in, I'm the C, and the foul is from my side on a player on the block, partially in the lane.

I come up with a whistle, don't hear the L blowing on it at the same time, and look up to see him banging it home and already on his way to the table as I'm doing the same.

No big deal -- but I recognize that it was (1) probably my foul to get since the L reached across and (2) still my fault since I was an outside official and we constantly talk about the L having first crack in the lane.

It was loud, though - the gym was absolutely packed. On one foul I ended up having to tweet a few times to actually stop play.

We could have a philosophical discussion about Schrodinger's Cat and its application to this situation, but I agree with you -- in real time we need to decide who is more responsible and go with that. Till the NFHS changes things to match the NCAAW, we need to follow the case play.

(The one thing I always ask in this situation is this -- we always praise officials for holding their preliminary and making sure there's only one call on the play. But what if that call is absolutely horrible? Why is one 100% wrong call better than 2 different calls -- at least one of them, then, is right.)

The only good thing about the NFHS/NCAAM way of handling it is what happens in NCAAW if both officials are stubborn and insist they are right? Does the third official get to break the tie? Does the R on the game decide (and there's a 2/3 chance he's involved in the call)? Do they poll the coaches and/or fans?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Keep fighting the good fight JAR

Makes me think of a bad 70s song.
 

All by himself. ;)

Peace

Did you cut and paste this? LOL.

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

Peace

Like I said, this part never gets answered.

It has been answered, you just do not want to accept the answer.

Peace

Send a letter to Tom Lopes, Art Hyland, John Adams, or Donnie Vaden and see what they say.

Don't know any of them, so I don't actually know what their interpretations are. The only place I've heard this is here, from all of you, whose opinions I greatly respect for the most part.

The simple question is why does a preliminary signal clinch the deal? Why is it a call or a ruling while a fist in the air is not?

Apparently the answer is "just cuz" because I've never seen another.

Have you written your state HS ruling body and asked the question?

Never saw the need. In my association, if we have a rules interpreter, it's me. (unofficially)

Most of their information is public. Adams and Hyland post their emails on several places and they will tell you the NCAA Men's position I am sure.

Peace

Ronny:

Whoooooooaaaaa Nellllllllllie!!! I have never (with apologies to J. Dallas Shirley) said that one cannot have a DF. Just this year alone, I had a DTF (both Flagrant) and two DPFs and Mark, Jr., had a DPF himself. What I am saying is that by rule it is impossible to have a "blarge".

"blarge" is a combination of two words: "block" and "charge" At this point I should issue a mea culpa: I have limited my musings in this thread to obtaining/establishing a LGP but they also apply not to just Guarding but to Screening as well.

When the Guarding and Screening rules apply and illegal contact occurs, by rule, there can be only one outcome: a block, or a charge, not both.

When the Guarding Rules apply: Either the Defensive Player (B-1) has obtained/established a LGP against an Offensive Player (A-1), or B-1 has not obtained/established a LGP against A-1.

When the Screening Rules apply: Either the Screening Player (B-1, yes defensive players can also set screens) has legally obtained/established a spot on the floor against the Screened Player (A-1), or B-1 has not legally obtained/established a spot on the floor against A-1.

And I will not go on because everybody knows my position about "blarges".

MTD, Sr.

The NCAA position is not relevant to me, and I've never actually read the NCAA rule/case that relates to this. I did ask the question to a guy at camp once:
"If this happens, do we have to report both fouls?" He seemed shocked by the question. "NO! Why would you?" I assured him that I wouldn't, but apparently a lot of guys would. He said, "NCAA, yes, NFHS no."

The NCAA-Men's position is identical to the NFHS position, so basically, you have read it.

A "guy" in a camp? Did he assign games? Was he with the state governing body?

What happens when/if you work state play-off games with 2 guys/gals from other parts of the state and they say "if....2 preliminaries....we have report it as a blarge"? You tell them, "no, that's not what we are doing" ?

I don't recall who the guy was. I'm not even sure if he was a camp official or just a camper. The point is, that was the only other place I had asked the question, and the guy agreed with me.

As far as I know, all members of a crew in the playoffs here come from the same place. If it ever does happen, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. My opinion in that situation would be as valuable as one of theirs.

Don't you think that is kind of important who the guy is? Because if he is not a person that is on any committee or has influence over what your state or organizations are doing, how is anyone else going to follow his logic on the subject?

I am a clinician in my state, which means I can talk about rulings or interpretations my state puts out in trainings or camps. I would never talk about just what I think when there is an interpretation out there for everyone to see.

Not if you are not following the rule and your own logic of the remedy.

Peace

I had a conversation with a guy. Who the guy is doesn't matter. He had an opinion, just like you and I. I'm just saying that this was one guy who had the same opinion I have.

I read the case and came to a conclusion about it. Other officials should do the same. Until somebody who has authority over what I do on the court tells me different, I will continue to practice and preach the same philosophy.

As far as discussing it here, while it is redundant, no I'm not trying to annoy anyone. (that's just an added perk :)) But we do have new members being added to the discussion all the time, so restating one's opinion is the thing to do, even if one is alone in that opinion.

I just wonder why you prefer to debate us as opposed to getting a definitive ruling from the body that governs HS basketball in your state, or from the national body. Especially considering that you say you are the interpretor for your organization. In VA, interpreters are responsible for getting official rulings from the state/NFHS when there are questions or disputes.

It does matter if you want to use it as your justification of how you apply the rule or interpretation. This is why I do not go around say, "Well there is the guy online that says we should do....." and then following that interpretation. That is why we have state interpreters or administrators that we answer to. And if we already have a rule or interpretation in place and in writing, I am not going to take some guy I heard at a camp tell me what to do.

I do not have to work with you specifically. But if someone told me they were going to do what you suggest, I am not going out without a big fight. And if we do something that is not followed by rule, I am making it known you were the one that took that position when I am asked later about why we did not follow the rule, if I even allow you to use some rule that is not supported by any interpretation.

I really do not think you are annoying anyone. Just find it funny you keep taking this position when there is wording that does not support your position. It is great you have an opinion, but most of us do not work based on your opinion here. As stated, keep up the good fight.

Peace

And I stated I am a clinician in my state. And we are expected to follow or seek information from the state administrator or others in authority when there is a need for a ruling. Everyone's email and phone number is listed if I need an interpretation.

Peace

Considering who you are (or say you are) and what position you have (or say you have), you have a very strange way of validating your opinion, and a strange place to go to do so.

"This one time, at basketball camp..." doesn't fly. Not here, not on the court, and CERTAINLY not if you're issuing opinions to others that they are expected to follow.

That's exactly the reason (need, in your words) that you should seek out advice from the person who is a higher authority than you.

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.

So ... you have NO ONE you could ask this of whose opinion you would consider as definitive? You have had no clinics at which this would come up?

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.

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

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.

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?

"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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.