[QUOTE]
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.
|
Correct. LGP not established. Straight block.
Quote:
|
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.
|
A point to RA indicates you are calling block ONLY because defender located in RA as LGP was established.
Why this is important (and logical):
There will be plays where calling official mis-applies RA rule (play develops in LDB, one-on-one, etc.) and pointing to RA invites partners to come with additional info to change to PC call. No point, no discussion.
In your scenario above, if you point to RA regardless of block/charge decision, then your partner comes and says "Partner, RA doesn't apply in this play because...". What will your reply be?