Quote:
|
Originally Posted by just another ref
Am I the only one that questions this application of the rule? By definition, is it not impossible for the play to be both a block and a charge? Couldn't it be like
2.6? In this case instead of deciding which occurred first, they must decide which occurred?
|
Imagine that on a particular play, only one whistle was sounded. That official (say the Lead) signals block because in his judgment, the correct call is a block. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a block would stand.
Imagine the same play happening, but instead of the Lead signalling, the Trail signalled. In his judgment, it is a PC foul. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a PC would stand.
Now - the same play happens again and two whistles and two signals: one of each. Each official is signalling what their judgment is on the play. To take away the call of a block and only go with a PC is like saying the judgment of the official calling block is less authoratative than that of the official calling a PC.
If this notion of disregarding judgment is allowed (which is what happens when the two get together and one decides to not follow through on his signalled call), then why accept the judgment of the block-calling official when he was the only one that had a whistle?
The same is true for the vice-versa situation.
That's
why we are to have a fist for fouls, and to make eye contact with our partner.
The above does not include cases where there was a travel before the foul, or a player was pushed into the ball carrier, etc.... it only applies to judgments on the
same contact.