Blarge
 

R1 calls a block on B1 and R2 calls Player Control Foul on A1 airborne shooter. Double personal foul called.

1) If the basket is good..do we count the basket?

2) Use AP for subsequent throw in?

NFHS

Assuming the ball was released before contact, count the basket and resume at POI which is team B endline throw-in.

Remember that an airborne shooter has released the ball, by definition.

Yes the basket counts. This is not a PC by definition, it is a double foul.

Not unless the shot is missed. Otherwise it is POI give the ball to B on the end line.

Peace

As JRut said, see Case Book 4.19.8 Sit. C.

Is this two man or three man mechanics? Here we have two man, every game I work we pregame this specific scenario, if we have a double whistle and the ball is in the lane the lead always takes it. The trail goes up with a fist and holds his preliminary signal.

Of course. But, sometimes is doesn't happen the way we'd like it to happen.

I believe that to be standard pregame conversation for all games, 2-man or 3-man, but it still doesn't prevent blarges from occurring.

Pregame this all you want, but be prepared for that play where not everyone does it the way you pregamed.

My two partners earlier this year had a blarge, and they went with a charge based on the fact that it was in that official's primary.

We can't get away with that ruling in these parts. Coaches know when we have F'ed it up, they expect us to go with the double foul.

I stayed out of the way while they sorted it out, and the one coach (who didn't get the call) wanted to know why. I didn't see any sort of argument, so I guess we got lucky.

You did. Around here, it would be the same as BNR's. Additionally, and this is where the real problem lies, this would get back to the assigner and would not go well.

Had my first ever blarge this season. It felt as crappy as you'd think it would feel. It was 3-man, I was C. Play started and finished on my side of the paint. My L didn't get the pre-game memo that C has first crack on his side. It just happened, even though we pre-gamed it. Neither coach had any idea what was supposed to happen under the circumstances, but we explained it to both. Thankfully the coaches were reasonable with the explanation and we handled it the right way. I am very hesitant to jump on a block/charge anymore, no matter which position I'm in. Don't want to have it happen again.

Had one in a summer game a few years ago, I was gun-shy for a while after that. Not with blowing the whistle, but I was extra careful about showing my prelim.

I've had one in my career. JUCO mens game about 5-6 years ago. I was the lead, it was a no-brainer block in the lane, and as I'm banging the block, the trail (3-person) was pointing the other way.

I looked over at the C, and I swear he was laughing. Later I found out it was because the charge call from the T was so bad he was laughing at what he knew my reaction was going to be later. We went double foul without a second thought and both coaches were unhappy, as you'd expect.

Anyhow, our crew has gotten sloppy this season, I'll admit -- it's something we need to clean up. We had a no-brainer player control foul in the dreaded triple whistle area last week, and I wouldn't be surprised if all three of us pointed it the other way. Seems we only ever do this on easy, no-brainer fouls, but I'm afraid it's going to happen when we have one that's not quite so easy. Hasn't bitten us yet...and the one I've had has been the only one since the 80s.

Right - that's what I meant. And it's a good thing, too, because on Tuesday night, I was working with a big hitter (state tourney guy) who scolded me for not blowing and holding from the outside after I had told him about my blarge pre-game. He stressed blowing and holding from the outside for our game. So what does he do the first time we have a block/charge? Blows and punches from C when I'm the L with my fist in the air. It was straight down the middle of the paint. He apologized next dead ball. Just goes to show - it can happen with even the most respected guys. I would have had the same call as him, but still....

As I understand it, there are basically 4 possibilities if you have a blarge. Get together with partners and figure out which applies.

1) Ball had not been released yet by A1 when fouls occurred --> Report both fouls. No basket scored. Ball to A as A had team control at the POI.
2) Ball had been released on shot by A1 and shot is good --> Score basket, report both fouls. Award Ball to B who may run the end line.
3) Ball had been released on shot by A1 and shot is not good --> Report both fouls. Award Ball based on possession arrow at the spot nearest the foul.
4) Ball had been released on a pass to teammate when the fouls occurred --> Report both fouls. Ball to A as A maintained team control on a pass.

So, can you go with the majority on a triple whistle?

Now don't be sad because
 

two out of three ain't bad according to Meatloaf

As I've told my daughter: In math class, 2 out of 3 is a D.

It is not necessary to report both fouls. You can confer and go with one call. Check with your assignor and see how it is to be handled where you work.

I don't understand the problem with picking one of the fouls and going with it.

Sure, one of the coaches is going to be upset, but does that matter? Are we to make changes to calls based on coaches being upset with it? If so, then we're going to be changing quite a bit.

And it seems to me that only one of the calls is correct. It can't be a charge and a block. I mean, both can happen, but not at the same time. So why would an assignor take issue with getting together, and figuring out which one to go with? And going with the primary officials call seems like the best course of action.

Why indeed. Not to mention that the conclusion cannot be logically drawn in the first place that both fouls must be reported, based on the case play or anything else. Still, check with your assignor, as this is the dominant interpretation in this case.

"Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do."

Theresia D. Wynns Editor NFHS Publications

I never said Meatloaf was right! :D

Not according to the Case Book. Two signals=double foul.

Depends on how you interpret the case. Show me the part where it mentions signals at all. And then show the part that requires both fouls be reported, no matter what happened.

I think this would be a very hard sell in NFHS. You could possibly do it in college, if there is definite knowledge that the defender is in the RA, but otherwise it'd be tough.

"Hard sell" to who? The coaches? The players? The fans? My response to all three... who cares? What matters is getting the call right, and it seems to me that the right thing to do is find out what happened, instead of settling for a double foul, because you can't have both a charge and a block on this play.

If you want to know what to tell coaches, here you go... "coach, I was in the best position for that call, and that is how I saw it." Is he going to like it? Maybe not, but that's hardly the first or last call he's going to disagree with. So why change the way it should be done to accommodate him this time?

Did you ever ask her what the casebook play was supposed to mean?

Because every one of my supervisors expects us to go with a blarge.

No, he never did directly ask when the case play should apply.

Of course not.

Why risk that she''ll eventually realize that a NFHS rule/case is actually different than in NCAAW ball? He has the answer he wanted all along, even if it likely is out-of-context.

Ad nauseum

Everyone who matters at the national level, and every state level but one, interprets the case play in the only way that makes sense. "Call" = "signal"

This all sounds good and I actually agree with JAR's position in theory. I think it would be best to get together and go with one call.

But the powers that be for the HS games I call have ALL made it very clear that a blarge occurs when two officials give preliminary signals and that it is to be enforced and administered according to the 4 scenarios laid out in the case book.

I have had one in my career that occurred 2 seasons ago. I'm the C on a play in secondary transition. The play happened on the other side of the paint right in the L's lap. I waited, waited and then put air on my whistle for what IMO was an easy block call. I came hard to sell it since I was coming late and a little out of my primary. As I go to report and kids start lining up I see the L, a soft spoken guy who lacks presence and is consistently late with whistles, with his first pointed the other direction. My first inclination was to ignore him and proceed to the table. But then I thought better of it, knowing that everything is on tape. I go to him, talk it through, and report both to the table. All the while, kids are lined up ready to shoot FTs.

I tell both coaches, and the coach who is getting screwed goes "so you're gonna take my kid off the line?" Yes, coach by rule that's what we have to do. I saw the same coach later and we talked about it. He said he knew we did the right thing by rule and that even though he could tell I felt bad about it we did the right thing. He also sent me the tape that confirmed that it was an obvious block even though I didnt wait as long as I thought I did.

I think the current NFHS rule sucks but again, its been made very clear here that it is to be enforced as HokiePaul noted in his post.

Actually, it now says "rules" rather than "calls."

She said if neither official will give up his call, then report both fouls. The case play tells us what to do then, but as I read it, that's all it tells us. Apparently her view is the same, along with my current association rules interpreter, and the state supervisor of officials.

Semantics, IMO. It was an editorial change that, without an accompanying definition, means nothing. It could be taken either way, and with just as much justification for either.

So basically, if both officials are obstinant? She's applying the NCAAW rule even though the rule is written identically to the NCAAM rule, which is interpreted as a requirement to report both fouls.

Throw in the NBA...which would rule this a double foul (absent the play ruling involving the RA or LDB).

So if it can be taken either way, why is my way so unthinkable? I get that one must follow local tradition and instruction.

The way I look at it...

Every code has this scenario in its case book....understandable.

NFHS, NCAA-M, and the NBA all have case book plays that are similar in wording and all come to the same conclusion (this is with no regard to the RA and/or the LDB in the NBA). Signal, call, rule...it's understood this is to be adjudicated as a double foul.

NCAA-W is the only code that differs. And they've made it absolutely clear. The two officials are to come together and decide whose primary it came from and to go with that ruling. It seems to me that if NFHS, whose wording is similar to the other codes, wanted to gives officials the option of handling this like JAR suggests, they would have made it a bit more clear. But there is no reference to even the officials getting together to decide what call to go with.

And it seems to me that if the NFHS wanted to take away the option of handling it like I suggest, they could easily make that a bit more clear:

"If conflicting preliminary signals are given, then and only then both fouls must be reported."


But there is no reference to signals, good bad or otherwise, requiring anything be done afterward, in this or any other case. And there is also nothing saying that officials may not confer, in this or any other case, before making the final ruling.

Still waiting for what the case play applies to. It makes no mention of obstinate officials, so that canard won't work here.

They could...but perhaps they don't cause 98 percent of officials know what is meant by the case book play...so the clarification isn't needed in their minds and they are better off spending their energies on deciding whether we are to become the sock police.

If the NFHS wanted to go the route of NCAA-W, then I think they'd make their case book play more closely match that from the NCAA-W's case book. The case book play mandates the officials to get together and decide which call to go with. As it is, it doesn't even come close to matching it. Not. Even. Close. If NFHS wants to go with what you're suggesting, they would have to go with a major editorial change (that would amount to a rule change).

I am waiting too.

Peace

My point is the change in wording is meaningless.

It also makes no mention of signals or reporting both fouls being mandatory under any circumstances.

If two officials call/rule/signal opposite things, which are by definition impossible, and neither one backs off, if this is not obstinate, what is?

The case play tells us what to do in the unlikely event this happens. I see the case play as useless.

And as I've pointed out countless times, why is this case play, which has been stretched well beyond its breaking point in my opinion, so important when the multiple foul case, which has zero grey areas, totally meaningless?

The answer: Because that's the way everybody else does it.

I don't disagree with that.

How so? They could simply delete the case play altogether, which already is in direct conflict with the rule. If the case play were gone, how would you proceed then?

Because neither way leads to your way.

Removing the case play may help you WIN this discussion but it will take much more than that to get all officials on the same page when this play occurs. Down here, we are heavily influenced by Women's college officials. They routinely apply your reasoning and do not catch much grief from the coaches for it, either.

I am waiting for one of them to apply it your way during a hotly contested state tournament game???? I am curious on as to how GHSA would handle this???

And the Great Blarge Debate of 2015 has begun.

Really not much of a debate. It always seems that everyone involved is certain of his own position.

I don't have a position. I have been expressly told how to handle the situation by multiple supervisors.

Exactly. And in my case, the people I work for do not like Women's College basketball, so they could give a damn what they do or want. This is HS and college that I work and the rules are clear as to what to do.

Peace

Can we stop please? This is the mirror image of the last thread we had on the issue and absent additional input from Theresa (did JAR ever email her and ask her what the case play was supposed to mean?) we will continue to treat this play according to our preconceived notions.

Couple of things. First of all, most of the people here said they didn't care what her opinion was, and she did say to check and see how your state wants this handled. Second, it seems to me that the case play answers the questions in the OP. Does the basket count? Who gets the throw-in? Why does it need to mean anything else? What she already said, for those who did want her opinion, is that it doesn't mean you EVER must report a double foul, whether signals were made or not. In fact, as mentioned above, she strongly discouraged doing so.

1. I am sure people here do care what her opinion but need to hear from her in an official capacity before they are willing to change. I think that is totally fair.

2. I know she said to check with my state how they want this handled and my state said they wanted it handled by the book. Thus, we are back to square one regarding what the case play actually means.

3. No matter what you think, Theresa's email to you does not constitute canon across the National Federation. I don't give a crap which way we go, but in order to shift from the traditionally held view of going double foul we are going to need clear, specific language in the rulebook or a national memo that tells us to change. Until then you are going to be the only one pining for this understanding of the case play.

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?

I have read this play on my own for years to mean you have to call double foul because:

It said when one CALLS block and one CALLS charge RESULT is a double foul. I have always considered "call" to be --blow the whistle/signal. The other key word for me is "result." If that happens the end all, the RESULT, is double foul. If you report only one foul that is not a "double foul." You have not reached the result the play calls for.
Now, I believe the change in wording from CALLS to RULES could be significant. I take note when words change. It could be said that word "rules" involves more of a thought process. It is more than just the original call. Confer...think then RULE. However, as everyone points out..the long held interpretation is report double foul...etc. If you are going to change a long standing view...tell somebody...make it public. Dont change a word and think your done. Leave no doubt about it.

Yes

That's how I originally read it, too.

Yes. End of story.

Peace

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.

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.

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

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

Or get it completely wrong.

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

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 . . .:D

Sounds like two separate contacts to me.

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.

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.

The simple answer is that you've "always understood" this incorrectly. The NFHS casebook ruling has been around for many years. The basket counts if released before the collision. If the ball was not yet released when the contact occurred, the double foul makes the ball dead and there is no try. As many others have previously written in this thread from last season, the ball is awarded to Team B when the basket counts and awarded back to Team A when the crash happens prior to the release.

A couple of things here. First of all you are kind of jumbling many different things into one. Let us take one at a time.



A "blarge" is two different officials making a call. Both signalling and the rulebook states that we cannot just ignore or take one back. You would not report a double foul initially as both officials would have to report their individual fouls. I guess at the end of it you could give the signal, but I do not think that is how I would do it (or have done it in the past) at the spot. That is all semantics as this is not supposed to happen in the first place.

If you read the case play and the ruling, nothing says that you would not count the basket. In Situation A, the ball goes in the basket and the basket is considered successful. Also in the play in question the ball was released before the "double foul." So you do not kill the ball because a foul does not automatically make the ball dead after a release. That is a basic fundamental in the rules actually. And since you do not have a PC foul by definition (you cannot on a double foul) it is treated like any other foul when the ball is clearly released. It would be no different if A1 shoots the ball and while the ball is in the air, A2 and B1 both foul each other and a double foul is called. You would allow the basket to count if it goes in and give the ball at the POI which would give Team B the ball. If the shot is missed, the POI is the AP situation as no one has possession.

I hope that kind of helps.

Peace

Who would the third official switch with? :confused: :p

I'm pretty sure that would be the least of their concerns at that moment...

Are you sure this is a 3 person game? ;)

Peace

I've never had a blarge, yet, but I doubt pregame does much good. I have no statistics to back it up, but I'm guessing the majority of officials when they go to blow their whistle aren't thinking about the pregame. Some of us just love to show our block/charge. Habits are habits.

Pregame can help, if nothing else it's a reminder and may help slow down. You're right, though, it's not going to prevent it. Does anyone honestly think the NCAA guys who do this every year didn't address it in pregame?

I've had one, in a summer game. We were pretty slow on the prelim the rest of the game.

I've also had a play where L and T had the same call (PC) and both reported at the same time, without knowing it, while the C stood back and observed them. He told them at half time.

They were both table side. L walked around opposite while T just turned around to report. That was poor awareness, but we got lucky.

That could've come off wrong. I didn't mean don't pregame it, just saying I doubt it helps much.

C probably got a great laugh here.

It's just having good habits and practices. Not sure a pregame can instill those.

We had a triple whistle on a blocking foul last week. I was the C and the L was a bit late getting to his spot so I (and the T, it turns out) hit the whistle rather than giving the L an extra tick.

Both of us posted, and the L came in and called a block. Neither one of us on the outside signaled anything (it *was* a block).

All we ended up doing is laughing at each other for the next 30 seconds or so.

Had one last night...and we messed it up. :(

2-person crew and I was lead on a break. Play at the basket coming in from the opposite side. Defender running down the middle of the court comes across and tries to set up just inside the paint.

I was ahead of the play and at the endline. I have a block for him leaning sideways into the shooter to make contact. He makes the shot, I come out counting the basket and ready to go with a block. My partner had made it down the court quickly also had a whistle and was already signaling PC.

The T should have been slow to show, of course, but that didn't happen. Now we have to administer it properly.

We go with the double foul. We counted the bucket since, as a double foul, it is no longer a PC foul. As a double foul, we were to go with the POI. And that is where I messed it up. Forgetting that the made basket should have made the POI be a throwin for team B, I ruled that he POI was a dead ball with neither team in control and went with arrow. I botched it. That happened to give the ball to the team that made the shot. :mad::mad::mad:

Never thought of this before, but it's all the more reason to do this the way the NFHS editor and I have said all along. If signals are the key, and now it's not a PC after all, the signals are meaningless, which means it's now a compromise. So why is this any different than going with one call?

Your question is no more different now than it was 10 years ago.

The difference is the NFHS editor says the exact same thing I've always said. Young officials hearing all this for the first time might want to know that, even if you don't.

You asked the editor a loaded question and she only replied to you. If that was some sort of "official" stance by the NFHS we would have seen it by now.

The "loaded" question you speak of, for those who may not know, was this.

The subject line of the e-mail was Case book 4.19.8c. The question was: Some associates and I have discussed this case which involves two officials making conflicting calls on a block charge play at great length and still have disagreement about when both fouls must be reported and when one may defer to the other.

Her answer: If there are double whistles, the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen and which may have come first. In fact when there are two whistles the officials should immediately hold the signal for the infraction and have the discussion. If one defers to the other then the signal is given and the official moves to the table to report. If they cannot come to an agreement, then they rule a double foul and both players will report (it does not matter who reports first). Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.

Her answer says *nothing* about when one signals a block and one signals a PC -- it is clearly talking about 2 officials posting.

Neither does the case play, but this was the follow up question:

The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation

Her answer: It does not change the equation. They still should come together and talk to make a final decision. If the decision is to go one way over another then that person goes to the table to report. If no one wants to give in, then they go to the table to report both fouls.

Ultimately, you should talk with your state office to determine if this is the direction they want the officials to go.

I can't believe I got sucked in again.

Sorry to everyone else.

Yeah, b/c she knows her answer doesn't hold water; she's giving the NCAA-Women's interpretation to an NFHS rules question. Since when does the NFHS tell officials to let their individual states to interpret a rule? Does her response really pass the smell test?

You are drawing a conclusion from that answer that just isn't there. In fact, her response actually counters your point. Her response indicated that there were two whistles ONLY, no signals. That is the key. That implies that once signals are given, the decisions have been made and it is too late to have the discussion.

You are right about one thing, but my state goes by what the NF has put in their casebook. Never been given any other position but to go with a double foul. Do what you want in your area and let you suffer the consequences from there.

Peace

*chuckle*

Do we understand that if the blarge/double foul is the decision, and the shot counts, that the awarding of 1 free throw, is nullified?

What's their to understand, and why add confusion. The resumption of play is the POI, doesn't matter the foul count. If the ball goes in team gets to inbound and run the endline. If it doesn't we go to the AP for a spot throw in.