Blarge

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think this is the whole thing. While this apparently is a very widely held view, like some other things, (3 seconds) there is no language in the case, let alone the rule that supports it.

Can anyone here say that he read this case and immediately decided, on his own, that it meant that conflicting signals obligated him to do something?

Yes

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes

That's how I originally read it, too.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think this is the whole thing. While this apparently is a very widely held view, like some other things, (3 seconds) there is no language in the case, let alone the rule that supports it.

Can anyone here say that he read this case and immediately decided, on his own, that it meant that conflicting signals obligated him to do something?

Yes. End of story.

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Can anyone here say that he read this case and immediately decided, on his own, that it meant that conflicting signals obligated him to do something?

Yes.

The obstinate, dueling officials interpretation never entered my mind until you mentioned it.

It makes far more sense to make this a double foul by default so that the dueling, obstinate officials scenario never has a chance of happening.

And what Arem said is dead on. Until we see official language, communicated in an official capacity that this should be handled like it is in NCAA-W (and NCAA-W alone), I'm sticking with the common interpretation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Yes.

The obstinate, dueling officials interpretation never entered my mind until you mentioned it.

It makes far more sense to make this a double foul by default so that the dueling, obstinate officials scenario never has a chance of happening.

If you make it a double foul by default, the dueling, obstinate officials scenario (if that's what you wish to call it) is the only option. And more importantly, it guarantees that one foul which is reported is wrong. (block/charge simultaneously IT CAN'T HAPPEN) The argument can be made that this is the lesser of the evils (I disagree) but I find it really difficult to say that this makes sense. If they are allowed to confer (nothing I read anywhere says they can't) hopefully they will go with the correct call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you make it a double foul by default, the dueling, obstinate officials scenario (if that's what you wish to call it) is the only option. And more importantly, it guarantees that one foul which is reported is wrong. (block/charge simultaneously IT CAN'T HAPPEN) The argument can be made that this is the lesser of the evils (I disagree) but I find it really difficult to say that this makes sense. If they are allowed to confer (nothing I read anywhere says they can't) hopefully they will go with the correct call.

Welpe's point is that forcing the double foul removes the opportunity for both officials to get obstinate. Frankly, I also never considered the obstinate officials as the intended situation. The NCAAW don't even have a provision for this, and they handle it the way your email respondent said to do it. If NFHS wanted us to do it the NCAAW way, they would word the rule the way they do in NCAAW. If they wanted us to do it they way it's done in NCAAM, they'd word the rule the same way the NCAAM book does.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Welpe's point is that forcing the double foul removes the opportunity for both officials to get obstinate.

Yes, and it also removes the opportunity to be reasonable.............and get the call right.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Adam

Welpe's point is that forcing the double foul removes the opportunity for both officials to get obstinate.

Precisely. It also speaks to the nature of making it such that officials shall not seek to overturn a partner's call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yes, and it also removes the opportunity to be reasonable.............and get the call right.

Or get it completely wrong.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yes, and it also removes the opportunity to be reasonable.............and get the call right.

I doubt seriously most of these decisions you suggest should happen will be about getting it right. It will be about whose ego is bigger and who has more juice to avoid taking the fall.

This is why you do not signal too quickly and we give it to the partner we agreed with in pre-game.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... (block/charge simultaneously IT CAN'T HAPPEN) ...

It sure as heck can. If not, the same thing can be said about all double fouls.

My only ever blarge was me calling A1 for pushing off, while my partner was calling a block for contact by B1 with his knee.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It sure as heck can. If not, the same thing can be said about all double fouls.

My only ever blarge was me calling A1 for pushing off, while my partner was calling a block for contact by B1 with his knee.

but that's not a blarge, it's a blush . . .

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It sure as heck can. If not, the same thing can be said about all double fouls.

My only ever blarge was me calling A1 for pushing off, while my partner was calling a block for contact by B1 with his knee.

Sounds like two separate contacts to me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It sure as heck can. If not, the same thing can be said about all double fouls.

My only ever blarge was me calling A1 for pushing off, while my partner was calling a block for contact by B1 with his knee.

Actually, they can't. A "blarge" is a conflicting opinion of block vs. charge on the same contact.

When there are two separate contacts, it comes down to which one happened first. There is no conflict. The example you listed is not a player. It is two different fouls. They could be simultaneous, but it is not a blarge.

[Spence]

I've always understood that on a blarge where the shot went in the basket does NOT count IF there was player control at the time of the foul.

However, I'm not sure how I justify that from the rulebook.

When we report the fouls we use the double foul signal, correct?

I can't find where it says that the basket does not count on a double foul. I see 4.19.8 C where it says it DOES count IF the ball was released prior to the foul.

Help me out.