Blarge alert!!!

Nevadaref

just another ref wrote
This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.

"The officials disagree."

Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.

1. I used the word "signal" specifically for you. 😉 I knew that you would state your opinion about there being a difference between signalling a foul and calling a foul. The truth is that there isn't one. The NCAA rules writers use those words interchangeably.

2. The reason that I wrote that the wording was fuzzy is because I believe that this instance of "disagree" is an error and should read "agree" instead: "(Men) In (1) and (2), the two officials disagree that the fouls
occurred simultaneously."

3. How this play was handled by Jim Burr, who is one of the best in the business and has been for some time, should serve as conclusive proof to you of how it is to be done at the NCAAM and NFHS levels. I included the NCAAW ruling from the AR as well, so that you would know that what you espouse is actually the NCAAW ruling and definitely different.

Nevadaref

canuckrefguy wrote
[1]Not even close.

[2]Also Burr's call, as it was a secondary defender.

[3]Agree that C was in poor position - he likely did not have a good look at how late the defender was.

1. I think it is a close call. The defender is obviously moving to his right at the time of contact, but that would be of absolutely no consequence had the dribbler still had a foot on the floor. There is no requirement that the defender be still or stationary. The correctness of the call hinges upon the offensive player going airborne and exactly when.

2. It was indeed a secondary defender, but this defender comes from outside of the lane and is moving towards the middle of the court. That's clearly the C's primary coverage area. The Lead should not be watching this defender. This is the opposite of what we normally see when the secondary defender is coming from the middle or weakside, out of the Lead's PCA, and trying to help with a drive on the C's side. So this was still the C's call, even though the crash involved a secondary defender.

3. The C does seem to get too high and possibly straight-lined as he ends up looking at the dribbler's back. It is difficult to see the defender move to his right AFTER the offensive player goes airborne from that angle. That is probably why the C deemed this a PC foul. Angles are of critical importance.

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
I honestly think it is assumed that if you made a call, you signaled the type of foul.

Peace

This is true, but this is not the point. The point is, does a preliminary signal absolutely obligate one to make a certain call. I see nothing which indicates this. Others here seem to indicate that the two officials making opposite preliminary signals necessitates the double foul call.

Snaqwells wrote
Prelim signals are to be handled with a double foul

walter wrote
If you have prelims, in NFHS, you have to penalize both.

M&M Guy wrote
Of course, the best way to avoid that situation is for the primary official to make the call, or for the two officials to not give a preliminary signal before making eye contact to determine who will sell the call.

Nevadaref wrote
If two officials signal conflicting fouls on a play, then the resolution is a double foul.

So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

Raymond

It was definitely a block but it was clearly in the C's primary.

just another ref

Nevadaref wrote
1. I think it is a close call. The defender is obviously moving to his right at the time of contact, but that would be of absolutely no consequence had the dribbler still had a foot on the floor.

It would be of no consequence if the guy had established LGP prior to the contact, but to my eye this guy has not.

Nevadaref

just another ref wrote
So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

Yep, that is exactly how it works.
Only one signal is given, then it is okay for only one type of foul to be reported. If two signals are given, then two fouls must be reported and the result is a double foul.
Neither official is permitted to simply drop his signal and walk away. If an official did that, then a coach would definitely have a right to get upset.

just another ref

Nevadaref wrote
Yep, that is exactly how it works.
Only one signal is given, then it is okay for only one type of foul to be reported. If two signals are given, then two fouls must be reported and the result is a double foul.

If the second official has his fist up, this is not a signal?

Nevadaref

just another ref wrote
It would be of no consequence if the guy had established LGP prior to the contact, but to my eye this guy has not.

Seriously? 😮

You don't believe that the defender ever had two feet on the floor and his torso facing the opponent at any time prior to the contact?

You may want to check the video again because I have to strongly disagree.

btaylor64

First of all it is a block. Player doesn't beat the alighted offensive player to the spot. This is where i don't like "takes it in the torso" philosophy. It is a decent, middle of the road philosophy if you ask me. There are way too many instances where a guy takes it in the torso and it should NOT be a charge.

Secondly, is most everybody saying that it would be a charge had he just tried to dribble past the defender instead of jump stop past him?

dahoopref

This is good stuff.

Was there a block/charge player earlier in the game? If there was, perhaps one of the officials was trying to call a similar foul on a play with similar consequence on that side of the court.

Nevadaref

btaylor64 wrote
First of all it is a block. Player doesn't beat the alighted offensive player to the spot. This is where i don't like "takes it in the torso" philosophy. It is a decent, middle of the road philosophy if you ask me. There are way too many instances where a guy takes it in the torso and it should NOT be a charge.

Great, time for our dose of pro philosophy. 🙄

Let me make it short and quick for everyone: FAVOR THE OFFENSE. :eek:

btaylor64 wrote
Secondly, is most everybody saying that it would be a charge had he just tried to dribble past the defender instead of jump stop past him?

Not only are people here saying that, but that's what the NFHS and NCAA rules books both say.

just another ref

Nevadaref wrote
Seriously? 😮

You don't believe that the defender ever had two feet on the floor and his torso facing the opponent at any time prior to the contact?

You may want to check the video again because I have to strongly disagree.

Defender was leaning several degrees backward as he slid into the guys path.

Nevadaref

just another ref wrote
Defender was leaning several degrees backward as he slid into the guys path.

What if he were leaning several degrees forward?

I must be missing your point. Do you think that verticality has some bearing on establishing initial LGP?

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
This is true, but this is not the point. The point is, does a preliminary signal absolutely obligate one to make a certain call. I see nothing which indicates this. Others here seem to indicate that the two officials making opposite preliminary signals necessitates the double foul call.

You may not, but I think that is trying to pick nits.

just another ref wrote
So, you guys correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that if you are positive it is a blocking foul, but have not made the block signal, but you do have a fist up, and the other guy signals PC, it is ok to walk away from the call, but if you have made the block signal, you will report a double foul?
Also, if the other guy sees your signal, says "My bad," and walks away, what would you do then?

If an official has not signaled anything, than it means little or nothing unless the calling official wants to consider the information. If we use that logic, what if we both have a foul and one thinks it is flagrant and the other thinks it is just intentional? We cannot call both just because. We have to pick one. In this case the rules state if both have signaled/called, then you cannot take either of them back. I do not see anyone interpreting the rules that way other than what you have stated. If it means that much to you I guess you could get into a debate with someone on the floor. I would suggest that you do not do that at that level. You might be the only one feeling that way, because the rules are meant to be the same as the NF interpretation.

Peace

just another ref

Nevadaref wrote
What if he were leaning several degrees forward?

I must be missing your point. Do you think that verticality has some bearing on establishing initial LGP?

I'm saying that if you are leaning back, as this guy was, your torso is not facing the opponent. More like facing the ceiling.

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
We have to pick one. In this case the rules state if both have signaled/called, then you cannot take either of them back.

These two words are not synonyms. Nevada said that the two terms are used interchangeably in the NCAA books. I'd like to see an example of this.

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
These two words are not synonyms. Nevada said that the two terms are used interchangeably in the NCAA books. I'd like to see an example of this.

And if the wording is not to you liking, then what are you going to do? It is not going to change the interpretation of the rule. 😉

Peace

Nevadaref

just another ref wrote
I'm saying that if you are leaning back, as this guy was, your torso is not facing the opponent. More like facing the ceiling.

😮

mbyron

Nevadaref wrote
Do you think that verticality has some bearing on establishing initial LGP?

No, but isn't there a distance requirement? I mean, it's not LGP when a defender stands under the basket facing a dribbler who is in his own back court, right? (Genuine question here, not being a smartazz)

jdw3018

just another ref wrote
I'm saying that if you are leaning back, as this guy was, your torso is not facing the opponent. More like facing the ceiling.

Holy carp.

« Previous Page Next Page »