Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump
As an interloper to the board from another forum, I generally enjoy this debate but it doesn't seem as if anyone is engaging JAR's point. Up until now, as I understood the blarge case play, making conflicting signals was considered "calling" each violation on the play and was the point of no return. Are you now saying that making conflicting signals is considered "ruling" each violation on the play? This seems a little specious simply because as you said above ruling comes before signaling.
In other words, here's how I saw the double whistle before working properly based on what I learned here:
You blow your whistle because you've ruled a charge and I blow mine because I've ruled a block. We both put our hands in the air and make eye contact and I defer to you based on coverage. You call a charge and I don't call anything.
But that's obviously not how you would word it?
|
We aren't engaging the point because it's been done before, a lot of time, and nothing is really new here. JAR has long argued that the case play really doesn't mean what every assigner, association, and clinic has taught that it means. If the NFHS didn't want it to mean what everyone says it means, they'vd had ample opportunity to make significant changes, or define "calls" (or "rules" now), and they haven't done it.
The wisdom of the case play is up for debate, but it's meaning really is not.