Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
Could it be that the issue for you is definitional? Perhaps you're defining a "true blarge" as one that really is both a block and PC foul. The applicable case doesn't define 'blarge' explicitly, but implicitly defines it in terms of what the officials call.
Perhaps your objection is that too many "notional blarges" end up being treated as "true blarges" by following the procedure of the case play.
|
The foul I called was based on torso to torso contact. The foul that he signaled, but then didn't call, was not. I'm reasonably certain that what we had was not a double foul, but one contact followed by the other. I do believe that his contact came first, and had I known then what I know now, I think we should have gone with his call, but he chose to vacate.
Our play had significant differences from the case play. The point of the question was whether some think that the opposing preliminary signals aspect is broad enough to cover this situation as well. I, obviously, do not.