Call Consistency as a Crew

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If it is a charge, call a charge. If it is a block, call a block. But if one were to video tape thousands upon thousands of bang bang block/charge calls, I will bet dollars to donuts that well over 95% will be charges, meaning when you absolutely have to call something, call a charge.

I've had a number of people tell me that it's fun to work with me because I'm not afraid to call the PC. You're exactly right: it is what it is. Just be able to back up your decision if asked about the call.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I've had a number of people tell me that it's fun to work with me because I'm not afraid to call the PC. You're exactly right: it is what it is. Just be able to back up your decision if asked about the call.

Jugs:

That is the problem, far too many officials afraid to call the charge and worse don't know the rule and how to apply it correctly.

MTD, Sr.

[icallfouls]

I took some time off from this thread since its inception.

So let me get this straight. Some people here are saying on block/charge plays (bang-bang) that if the first one is a block, then the sceond one should also be a block?

So in the first qtr there is a big B/C call to make. I call a block and got the play right. Later in the game, who cares when, there is another bang-bang B/C call. For the sake of argument, this is a charge and we get the play right. Both plays went against the same team, but because we had an earlier bang-bang play we should call a block, even if it is wrong?! BTW, B/C plays aren't bang-bang plays, either LGP was established or it wasn't.

I liken this to a coach that just got a T, then they get a few calls in their favor. If the next play is against the same team, call it against the same team.

I rarely say this, but this time I agree with Jurassic.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

So let me get this straight. Some people here are saying on block/charge plays (bang-bang) that if the first one is a block, then the sceond one should also be a block?

I'm not sure if I'm counted on this side of the argument, but I would expand the explanation to say if in my partner's judgement, that first particular play was a block, and I get the same play in front of me later, my judgement should also consider that same play a block. Iow, the crew should have the same judgement on all plays.

Originally Posted by icallfouls

I rarely say this, but this time I agree with Jurassic.

Maybe you should look at his posts a little closer, you might agree with him more than just rarely.

I do agree with his simple logic in that all plays should be called on their own merit. However, simply saying "a block on one end will be a block on the other end" is also overly simplistic. Some people go into a game with differing levels of judgement. I might feel I can pass on certain contact because I didn't feel it caused an advantage, but my partner(s) might feel that same contact did cause an advantage, and therefore call the foul. I pass on the play at one end, my partner calls a foul on that same contact on the other end, and the result is an inconsistent crew. Whichever one of us is "correct", the other(s) should change their judgement to match. It can also be applied to block/charge calls, in that if we all know the rules and apply them them correctly, how could you not agree that a "block on one end is a block on the other"? If we as a crew don't all follow the same guidelines, I might call a charge on player who knocks over a defender who has LGP, but has one foot in the air, while my partner might feel having that one foot in the air does not constitute LGP. One end of the floor is a charge, the other end of the floor the same play is a block, and we have an inconsistent crew.

Does that make more sense?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

I rarely say this, but this time I agree with Jurassic.

In that case, I'm going to change my stance on it. I agree with Scrapper now.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In that case, I'm going to change my stance on it. I agree with Scrapper now.

Oh.

In that case, I agree with Snaqs.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Oh.

In that case, I agree with Snaqs.

Boy, I'm not sure I'd do that if I were you. It's just asking for trouble. I've met him, he's sort of loopy.

I just checked, and he hasn't really offered anything substantive for the original topic of this thread.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I just checked, and he hasn't really offered anything substantive for the original topic of this thread.

Exactly.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Exactly.

Shut up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Oh.

In that case, I agree with Snaqs.

Shut up.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Shut up.

Exactly.

Er...wait a minute...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Oh.

In that case, I agree with Snaqs.

Oh, but i agree with Oracle (or 0racle) and Yaworski (only the really oldtimers may remember this one....and they may have to think about it for awhile too!)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Oh.

In that case, I agree with Snaqs.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Oh, but i agree with Oracle (or 0racle) and Yaworski (only the really oldtimers may remember this one....and they may have to think about it for awhile too!)

Ouch! That hurts.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In that case, I'm going to change my stance on it. I agree with Scrapper now.

Alright, it appears that my recent post was taken out of context.
I don't reply to every single topic like some folks as I just don't have the time to follow every single topic of discussion.

There have been ocassions when JR and I have had differences of opinion and perhaps those times are what I am actually referring to. I am sure that he has been correct more often than not, I agreed, and moved on.

I guess I just remembered it incorrectly

[Adam]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

I guess I just misremembered it incorrectly

I fixed it for you.