Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef
I guess you guys have never had a block/charge play that was bang bang on a fast break that needs 4 of your fellow officials to review the film 5 time in slow motion to decide whether the play was a block or a charge. Then have one of those plays happen where you adjudicate it as an RA play and in that split second call a block solely because the defender was in the RA. Seems to me in that situation you would follow the signaling sequence and include both a block signal and point to the RA.
Now, suppose your interpretation of the RA play is wrong - say it was on a fast break, but it was actually 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 and your partner brings you that information since you indicated it was an RA play. Now you would have to do what we do on any other 50/50 play and come up with a call. That could be a block or that could be a charge.
Hence it is not necessarily true that if you call an RA play and point to the RA that you would have had a PC.
Splitting hairs, but I don't think you leap to stating something as fact that is not actually written in the books. I understand that approach works and holds true 98% of the time, but if that were the rule, then it would have been easy enough to put it in writing just as the block in any circumstance is in writing.
QED
|
As Bob said, how could they make it any clearer. And I'm the lurker here who usually says that what they say is a clear rule is not really clear.
Here's how you resolve your problem. When there is contact decide what it would have been absent the RA. Just like you would have on any other play. If it would have been a block, signal block. If it would have been a charge, signal a restricted area block. Then if you're wrong about the RA, your partner can come in and help you. If you're wrong about the block charge part of it nobody can help you. Put another way, you don't get to defer deciding this part of the play because there's an easy way out, because you might be wrong about the easy way out.