Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef
I am not trying to be a pain in the butt, but nowhere in the manual does it indicate that if I point to the RA that I would otherwise have called a PC. It just doesn't stand up to logic. Here is why there is a difference:
If the play is a block, and I don't point that indicates that the block is being called on illegal movement. No one can bring me information on the RA that would change that call.
But if I called a block, because I thought it was an RA play and pointed (which is how the Signaling Sequence is worded "occurs because the secondary defender was located in the restricted area"), if someone brought me information that the defender wasn't inside the RA, the play could then be changed. There may be times when the only thing I am calling (which could be wrong...) is that the defender was secondary and in the RA when contact occurred - I don't have to decide if B/C - I just point to the RA and indicate block. And we know that there are some 50/50 plays that could go either way. By your assertion I could not do this as you assume I would have had a PC.
Now you or your conference may have adopted the position that pointing = PC, but don't argue that that is what the mechanics manual states.  |
Again, my comment was in jest but I agree with the others. Adam highlighted the bottom part of the manual which said if it's a block with or without the RA don't point to the RA.
Now, If I'm certain he's in the arc I might report it that way at table. Not pointing to arc when I call it is important for communication to partners. The arc can be a pain and the mechanic lets us all know what's going on.
If I know that when u signal block, it's a block no matter what...forget the arc...im not coming in to tell you anything. It was a block no matter what. If I know that you will only point to RA if call would have been charge but for RA I know whether to change or not.