Mechanics and clock situations (Video)

[just another ref]

The point was whether anyone felt this call was irreversible because of the preliminary signal, which most say is the key to when you "have to" report both fouls on a blarge.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... this call was irreversible because of the preliminary signal, which most say is the key to when you "have to" report both fouls on a blarge.

Based on the interpretation, the conflicting preliminary signals (calls) are irreversible.

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Based on the interpretation, the conflicting preliminary signals (calls) are irreversible.

Even if it is a given that signal = call, which is debatable, questions remain. This is a good example. In the OP, the C looks like he was about to let it go before finally giving the block signal. So, if he doesn't give the preliminary signal at all, now is he not allowed to report his foul at all, which most of us seem to agree was the correct call?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Even if it is a given that signal = call, which is debatable ...

True. We've been down this path before, it certainly has been debated here on the Forum over an over with no certain consensus, or conclusion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

True. We've been down this path before, it certainly has been debated here on the Forum over an over with no certain consensus, or conclusion.

Is it debatable? I have never seen this conversation anywhere else but here and with one person honestly. So if it is that debatable we would be having this conversation several times in several places, but it never seems to happen that way. And what is disappointing is that this person actually had an email conversation where they could have asked for clarification of this issue, but didn't do just that. So I am not so sure this is even debatable but in someone's mind.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is it debatable?

Are you saying that a large majority of Forum members have come to a consensus regarding this topic? That the word "call" is well defined, and may include a preliminary signal, by the NFHS and needs no discussion?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you saying that a large majority of Forum members have come to a consensus regarding this topic? That the word "call" is well defined, and may include a preliminary signal, by the NFHS and needs no discussion?

Correct, it needs no discussion. It has never come up as a real world issue or scenario.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you saying that a large majority of Forum members have come to a consensus regarding this topic? That the word "call" is well defined, and may include a preliminary signal, by the NFHS and needs no discussion?

This forum is a very small percentage of people to all officials, let alone the ones we actually deal with in life. Whether there is a consensus here or not means nothing if the people we deal with in any context never discuss this issue. In my world, no one has ever made this an issue the way it has been made here. I have heard individuals suggest we should go to the NCAA Women's interpretation, but never have anyone suggest that we should not invoke 4.19.8 Situation C as written. BTW I also work NCAA games and the rule interpretation is the same on the Men's side. So when this situation happens there, we go with the same result as the NF game suggests.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, if he doesn't give the preliminary signal at all, now is he not allowed to report his foul at all, which most of us seem to agree was the correct call?

I don't think the issue has EVER been about what C is ALLOWED to do, only about what he is REQUIRED to do if both officials give signals.

Now, if you want to get into a (different) discussion on whether it's better for C to give the different call or just to eat it, have at it. Personally, I'd rather read more speculation on what FED means with the BC rule change.