22 years, 1 blarge

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I can only imagine it applying in your #2, and no, I can't imagine that they wrote a case play specifically for that purpose. But it is equally difficult for me to imagine that a case play was written to specify that one team should be penalized if the officials improperly use preliminary foul signals, and that this is true even though the case play in question does not actually mention preliminary foul signals.

Manual not readily available, but aren't PC and Blocks supposed to get a preliminary on the spot of the foul? And wouldn't that indicate a specific foul has been called? And how are you assuming "improper" use of preliminaries if the play were to happen in a dual coverage area, but the officials just had differing opinions?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Same sh!t, different day.

Friday.

They brought it up, yesterday and today.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Manual not readily available, but aren't PC and Blocks supposed to get a preliminary on the spot of the foul? And wouldn't that indicate a specific foul has been called? And how are you assuming "improper" use of preliminaries if the play were to happen in a dual coverage area, but the officials just had differing opinions?

I don't know what is in the manual, but is it not generally agreed that on a double whistle officials should withhold the preliminary signal for this very reason?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

They brought it up, yesterday and today.

And don't think that I'm not pissed off at them for not just ignoring something as idiotic as your assertation that a plainly written rule simply doesn't exist.

Nobody that can read and has an IQ higher than a doorknob would ever buy that nonsense anyway. So...why bother arguing it with you?

But keep on keeping on, JAR. Maybe you can lure somebody else in.

WOBW.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't know what is in the manual, but is it not generally agreed that on a double whistle officials should withhold the preliminary signal for this very reason?

Yes, but once the preliminaries are used, the fouls have been "called".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes, but once the preliminaries are used, the fouls have been "called".

Is that in the manual?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

WOBW.

Am I the only one who doesn't know what this means?

Is it one of them "philosophy from hell" things?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

1) Am I the only one who doesn't know what this means?

2) Is it one of them "philosophy from hell" things?

1) Waste of band width.

2) No, it's an accurate description of this particular discussion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yes, but once the preliminaries are used, the fouls have been "called".

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is that in the manual?

I'll go along with you and say it is not. So, now back to my question, when would the case play apply?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Waste of band width.

2) No, it's an accurate description of this particular discussion.

So you continue to use more band width to point out what a waste of band width the discussion is.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So you continue to use more band width to point out what a waste of band width the discussion is.

and of course you've proven his point again by responding

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

and of course you've proven his point again by responding

Thought that's what band width was for.


I actually don't really know what band width is.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'll go along with you and say it is not. So, now back to my question, when would the case play apply?

In my world, it wouldn't. I cannot envision a situation where it would.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

By definition, if a blocking foul happened, a charge didn't happen, and vice versa.

Which definition is that?

BLOCK: "Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball."

CHARGE: "Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponent’s torso."

Nothing in these definitions precludes the possibility of having both on one play.

You might have a point about proper enforcement, but that's not a matter of definitions.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

BLOCK: "Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent with or without the ball."

CHARGE: "Charging is illegal personal contact caused by pushing or moving into an opponent’s torso."

These two things can happen simultaneously?