Charge and a block on the same play

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Imagine that on a particular play, only one whistle was sounded. That official (say the Lead) signals block because in his judgment, the correct call is a block. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a block would stand.

Imagine the same play happening, but instead of the Lead signalling, the Trail signalled. In his judgment, it is a PC foul. Some people wouldn't like it, but the call of a PC would stand.

Now - the same play happens again and two whistles and two signals: one of each. Each official is signalling what their judgment is on the play. To take away the call of a block and only go with a PC is like saying the judgment of the official calling block is less authoratative than that of the official calling a PC.

If this notion of disregarding judgment is allowed (which is what happens when the two get together and one decides to not follow through on his signalled call), then why accept the judgment of the block-calling official when he was the only one that had a whistle?

The same is true for the vice-versa situation.

That's why we are to have a fist for fouls, and to make eye contact with our partner.

The above does not include cases where there was a travel before the foul, or a player was pushed into the ball carrier, etc.... it only applies to judgments on the same contact.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, sorta, I think, but questions remain.
As to the part about "some people wouldn't like it," while this is true, I see it as irrelevant since this is true no matter what is called or not called. My thought is simply that the two officials should get together and decide who had the better angle and go with that call, rather than let both foul calls stand, one of which we know is wrong. In fact rather than stay with the double foul, we could go with no foul at all and resume at POI. Don't throw stuff. I'm not saying I would do that now, just saying that this is a rule change possibility that I would find at least as fair as the way the rule is now.