admitting to a coach you made a mistake

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This, as always, is debatable.

Only by you.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Subtlety is often wasted on me. I don't really know what this means.

I apologize, as I was being a bit snippy. My point was, no one here has ever said that prelim signals can't be changed (except in the case of the blarge).

Essentially, you built a strawman argument and burned it down quickly.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

..... prelim signals can't be changed (except in the case of the blarge).

Where in the NF Officials Manual does it say this? I realize it would be bad to do so, but I'm not sure you can state "can't" as an absolute without any exception pertaining to this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

Where in the NF Officials Manual does it say this? I realize it would be bad to do so, but I'm not sure you can state "can't" as an absolute without any exception pertaining to this.

Case book, my friend, and it's very specific. One official signals a charge, the other signals a block (thus it's a blarge). By rule (case), you must go with a double foul.

If someone doesn't do it first, I'll find the case play when I get home tonight.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Case book, my friend, and it's very specific. One official signals a charge, the other signals a block (thus it's a blarge). By rule (case), you must go with a double foul.

If someone doesn't do it first, I'll find the case play when I get home tonight.

4.19.8 C But it doesn't say signals, it says calls.

The two terms are not interchangeable if you ask me, which no one ever does.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C But it doesn't say signals, it says calls.

The two terms are not interchangeable if you ask me, which no one ever does.

OK, I'll ask: why on earth would anyone in his right mind deny that signaling a foul constitutes calling it?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK, I'll ask: why on earth would anyone in his right mind deny that signaling a foul constitutes calling it?

Look in your book. It's called a "preliminary" signal. Preliminary connotates that it can be changed.

"Calling" a foul means to report the foul. This occurs at the table, not at the spot of the foul.

Originally Posted by fiasco

Look in your book. It's called a "preliminary" signal. Preliminary connotates that it can be changed.

"Calling" a foul means to report the foul. This occurs at the table, not at the spot of the foul.

Hmmmmm ~ glad you cleared that up, I was always under the impression that we "called" the foul at the spot & "reported" them to the table.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8 C But it doesn't say signals, it says calls.

The two terms are not interchangeable if you ask me, which no one ever does.

We have, and here's the question that has been posed:
Are you suggesting this case play refers to both officials actually reporting the foul to the table? If it means something beyond the signal, what does it mean?

The options as I see them:
1. "calls" equals "signals" in this case.
2. "calls" means reporting the fouls.
3. "calls" means both officials refuse to back down.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We have, and here's the question that has been posed:
Are you suggesting this case play refers to both officials actually reporting the foul to the table? If it means something beyond the signal, what does it mean?

The options as I see them:
1. "calls" equals "signals" in this case.
2. "calls" means reporting the fouls.
3. "calls" means both officials refuse to back down.

Poor editing, IMO. Should read "signals." I don't think I've ever in my life witnessed two officials going to the table and intentionally reporting two different fouls on the same play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.19.8C

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 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 and 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. (4-36)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Case book, my friend, and it's very specific. One official signals a charge, the other signals a block (thus it's a blarge). By rule (case), you must go with a double foul.

If someone doesn't do it first, I'll find the case play when I get home tonight.

Now, just to be the devils advocote here...

We all know that is possible for an official to come up with a signal that is not what they intended....visually indicates a charge while stating that is a block or vice versa. It doesn't happen often but it does happen and it is usually on a bang-bang play....not unlike the situations that lead to a blarge.

What if one official signals and states that he has a block while the other official signals a charge but yells out block (making a signal and statement that contradict)?

In the individual case, the official just eats a little crow and makes one call. Now, when it is complicated by a "blarge", does the official get to correct himself, knowing that he really meant to call what his parter was also calling and just simply came up with the wrong signal (imagine a foul that could not be mistaken but the offical just has a misfire in his motor control...defender flying into the side of the shooter knocking the shooter into the 3rd row).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Now, just to be the devils advocote here...

We all know that is possible for an official to come of with a signal that is not what they intended....visually indicates a charge while stating that is a block or vice versa. It doesn't happen often but it does and it is usually on a bang-bang play....not unlike the situations that lead to a blarge.

What if one official signals and states that he has a block while the other official signals a charge but yells out block (making a signal and statement that contradict)?

In the individual case, the official just eats a little crow and makes one call. Now, when it is complicated by a "blarge", does the official get to correct himself, knowing that he really meant to call what his parter was also calling and just simply came up with the wrong signal (imagine a foul that could not be mistaken but the offical just has a misfire in his motor control...defender flying into the side of the shooter knocking the shooter into the 3rd row).

What he said.