Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
I think this is the whole thing. While this apparently is a very widely held view, like some other things, (3 seconds) there is no language in the case, let alone the rule that supports it.
Can anyone here say that he read this case and immediately decided, on his own, that it meant that conflicting signals obligated him to do something?
|
I have read this play on my own for years to mean you have to call double foul because:
It said when one CALLS block and one CALLS charge RESULT is a double foul. I have always considered "call" to be --blow the whistle/signal. The other key word for me is "result." If that happens the end all, the RESULT, is double foul. If you report only one foul that is not a "double foul." You have not reached the result the play calls for.
Now, I believe the change in wording from CALLS to RULES could be significant. I take note when words change. It could be said that word "rules" involves more of a thought process. It is more than just the original call. Confer...think then RULE. However, as everyone points out..the long held interpretation is report double foul...etc. If you are going to change a long standing view...tell somebody...make it public. Dont change a word and think your done. Leave no doubt about it.