Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
What it boils down to is that the NCAA has declared that once a conflicting call has been made known by showing what you have, you can''t cancel one of them. They didn't say you have to completely show it, just that it be shown. If you know what he had, it was shown.
There was a great example of it being done right at around the 15min mark of Butler/Marq. The C merely raised his fist and nothing more while the L took the call. The C may or may not have had something different but he didn't show any indication of what he had and it was over. That is how it should be done. Show "nothing".
|
Well your claim is that these are conflicting signals. So in order for that the interpretation that everyone at that level can apply, don't you have to have something that suggests this is the case? All the video the NCAA uses (and they use a lot of it) and they have never addressed your claim that this is a "blarge" by rule or that you have to consider this action by the lead a "signal." I would have no problem agreeing with that opinion if there was some literature to back that up. Otherwise you will have this kind of action. Right now only NCAAW has made it where you can pick one or the other after calls have been signaled. The NCAA is staying with the same philosophy that the NF has laid out. And even the NF has not said that any gesture or movement that may look like a particular signal is a sign of a "blarge." You keep talking about rules but have no rule to support this very specific situation. Yes it is obvious to me that the Lead was going to call a block, but he did not complete the signal. And as I have stated before I have seen officials run off the baseline to signal a PC foul or a block depending o their personal style (Joey Crawford) and would that be evidence of either signal if they had not actually given a signal that looks somewhat like it is described in the book? I think that is a stretch and that is really all my position has been here.
Peace