Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
You keep not answering the question...
Why, in your opinion, when two officials disagree on what they saw, should we immediatly and uniformly default to the one of those two that threw a flag, and the one that saw the same action, but NOT see a foul or throw a flag, must defer to the judgement of the other... in other words, why do we assume, in such cases, that the one throwing a flag was RIGHT in his judgement call, and completely dismiss the other official's judgement call (for certainly it was judgement that caused him to NOT throw a flag)?
I've posted my opinion on why we do this, but you've not, and I'm curious to hear if your reasoning mirrors mine or supplements it.
|
I think it undermines the crew's credibility to be picking up flags unless it's a situation that REALLY calls for it.
The OP's post doesn't fit this criteria, IMO.
I WH on Friday nights with the same crew every week. Reading the original scenario, I'd have no problem taking my time and having this conversation with the two officials, but I'd prefer them having that conversation before I got involved. If I got there before there was agreement, I'd ask both what they saw.
If both were adamant, I'd go with the flag. I understand that there's a decision involved in both the flag and no-flag outcomes, but the flag is a positive act -- it's saying that the covering official SAW a foul. And at that point I'd be giving the preliminary signal and ending the discussion.
Being the white hat, 95% of the time, is simply working one of the five positions in a 5-man crew. This is one of the 5% where the white hat has to decide what the crew is going to do. And this is a good discussion to be having in the pregame.
--Rich