[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) You have to go with the whistle-blower, by rule, unless the whistle blower subsequently decides that he wants to change his call after consultation. A signal is NOT a call; it is merely a way to convey information to participants and spectators. And the information being conveyed by that signal can be just as erroneous as the call. I can give a tip signal to my partner on an OOB call, but I also may not have seen a subsequent tip that my partner did see.

2) Nevada, you can have the non-whistling official stand on his head and his signal can then come out of his butt for all I care. He still didn't make a call; he made a signal. A completely unecessary signal that he shouldn't have made btw imo.

Rule 2-6 supports the official making the call as being the only official who can subsequently change that call. Unless you can find something somewhere from the FED that says a non-calling official's signal by itself can overrule a call, let alone having an official who did not make a signal or blow his whistle being able to overrule a call, I don't know how you can continue to support your hypothesis. Rules rulz and it doesn't matter whether any of us disagrees with them.

We're both making the same points over and over and we sureasheck ain't ever gonna agree. Time to take this one to the barn.

So good to have the voice of common sense back: