Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
Clearly stated? You think that this play clearly states that signals, even though not mentioned at all, obligate us to report a block and a charge on the same play, which is by definition, impossible. Well now there are three of us on record as saying this is not clear at all.
|
Yes it is clearly stated. But you on the other hand went looking for nits in the crap to justify some position that no one but you are trying to make. I have been around hundreds of officials and not one has ever made the claim you have. Better yet, no one has ever claimed they did not understand the caseplay. So yes, that is rather clear to me when others who I have never tried to influence know the rule the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
I was told to take my argument to a higher authority. I did so, with great success if I must say so myself.
|
You go with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
I turn the challenge around now. One of you find out who wrote this case play and get an explanation from that person to say whether the common (mis)perception was indeed its original intended purpose. Even if it was I now have more than enough backing for my position to continue on the current path.
|
JAR, at this point I do not care. The literature is clear, I am not having issues with what is written. No one around me has issues with what is written. My state has not stated to do anything different than already stated. Right now in my world, someone that is on the internet wants us to take his word for something that does not influence anything anyone around me or who I work for thinks. I am not going to go looking for an answer based on those facts or information. Sorry.
Peace