22 years, 1 blarge

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

And there's the rub. In the world of the FED and NCAA-M there are situations that this rule applies otherwise it wouldn't be in both of their rule books. Nor would NCAA-W have specific wording to preclude such a call.

[mj]

I went 15 years before having my first blarge back in mid-December. Neither coach said a word after it was explained to them that 'by rule' it's a double foul.

If I can go another 15 years before the next one, I'll be happy. Or hopefully the rule is changed to the NCAA-W rule by then.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by mj

I went 15 years before having my first blarge back in mid-December. Neither coach said a word after it was explained to them that 'by rule' it's a double foul.

If I can go another 15 years before the next one, I'll be happy. Or hopefully the rule is changed to the NCAA-W rule by then.

Women use this because of less egos. Men's side won't give up their call because "I'm right and you're wrong."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the world of the FED and NCAA-M there are situations that this rule applies otherwise it wouldn't be in both of their rule books.

Multiple foul is also in the books. If I'm not mistaken, many here have expressed varying degrees of intent to "ignore one and go with the other" in that situation without being condemned for it.

I vary from the norm in many ways, apparently. Time to put on my uniform and travel a hundred miles to call some games.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

If the L calls a PC and the C calls a block and they both give preliminary signals, what are you going to do if you are one of the officials? How are you going to resolve this?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

If the L calls a PC and the C calls a block and they both give preliminary signals, what are you going to do if you are one of the officials? How are you going to resolve this?

Confer and go with one call. The "conference" may involve nothing more than one official walking away and deferring to the other.

"I made a signal, but I realized my partner had the call."

[rwest]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Confer and go with one call. The "conference" may involve nothing more than one official walking away and deferring to the other.

"I made a signal, but I realized my partner had the call."

Where in the manual does it indicate we are to use this mechanic?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

Where in the manual does it indicate we are to use this mechanic?

Couldn't say. Where does it tell what to do if you signal one thing and realize you should have signaled something else, or nothing at all? It happens.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Couldn't say. Where does it tell what to do if you signal one thing and realize you should have signaled something else, or nothing at all? It happens.

You are arguing against conventional wisdom on this play based on the fact that when a foul is "called" is not defined in the rule book. Yet you also recommend a mechanic that is not defined. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to argue against the consensus on this, you have to come up with something that is supported, IMHO.

True it happens, but there is no case play either way on that. There is when two officials call two different fouls on the same play. I believe the implication is that when you signal a preliminary that you are making a call. That is why we are taught to not signal on a double whistle until one official defers to the other.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by rwest

You are arguing against conventional wisdom on this play based on the fact that when a foul is "called" is not defined in the rule book. Yet you also recommend a mechanic that is not defined. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to argue against the consensus on this, you have to come up with something that is supported, IMHO.

True it happens, but there is no case play either way on that. There is when two officials call two different fouls on the same play. I believe the implication is that when you signal a preliminary that you are making a call. That is why we are taught to not signal on a double whistle until one official defers to the other.

But that isn't a valid way of doing textual interpretation. The case play refers to "calling" a foul. You choose to define that to mean making a preliminary signal. And you could be right that this was the intent but you can't defend that from the text only. You can't soundly say that no one can criticize your attribution unless they have a valid attribution for what they suggest.
It may be that the intent of this case play is as most on this board feel it is. Not my game, so I'm happy to defer to the majority their. But as written that's not what it says. I'm fine with that as there are things in the softball rulebook that don't really mean what they say and someone who knows what is going on just has to explain what was meant.
A natural reading of this passage requires you to figure out what is meant by calling. If you believe it's making a preliminary determinative signal (as opposed to the preliminary signal that it is a foul), then I'm curious how you differentiate these two cases:
A. In your PCA with no one poaching, you see an obvious PC, blow your whistle to get it and in a serious brain cramp hit your hands to your waist. Oops, sorry coach my bad, PC.
B. Double whistle on an obvious PC. You do the same thing but since you're partner signaled the PC erroneously you can't fix your mistake even though you never intentionally called the block.
And the case play isn't enough to get you there.
________
Roll A Joint

[rwest]

Originally Posted by youngump

But that isn't a valid way of doing textual interpretation. The case play refers to "calling" a foul. You choose to define that to mean making a preliminary signal. And you could be right that this was the intent but you can't defend that from the text only. You can't soundly say that no one can criticize your attribution unless they have a valid attribution for what they suggest.
It may be that the intent of this case play is as most on this board feel it is. Not my game, so I'm happy to defer to the majority their. But as written that's not what it says. I'm fine with that as there are things in the softball rulebook that don't really mean what they say and someone who knows what is going on just has to explain what was meant.
A natural reading of this passage requires you to figure out what is meant by calling. If you believe it's making a preliminary determinative signal (as opposed to the preliminary signal that it is a foul), then I'm curious how you differentiate these two cases:
A. In your PCA with no one poaching, you see an obvious PC, blow your whistle to get it and in a serious brain cramp hit your hands to your waist. Oops, sorry coach my bad, PC.
B. Double whistle on an obvious PC. You do the same thing but since you're partner signaled the PC erroneously you can't fix your mistake even though you never intentionally called the block.
And the case play isn't enough to get you there.

When ever you read something you interpret the meaning based on the written word. Sometimes that requires inferring what the writer meant. And it is a good debating tactic to show the weakness of ones argument by showing that they are doing exactly what they argue you are doing. It neutral's your argument. It doesn't prove mine, but it weakens yours. You can't say the rule book or case play doesn't say one thing and then justfiy your approach that is also not defined by the same rule and case books. You can't have it both ways. If the majority is wrong for inferring that the preliminary signal is "calling a foul" then you are equally wrong for conferring to determine which foul occurred first. It's not supported by rule or mechanic.

And I'm not saying you can't criticize my argument. I'm saying you can't defend your argument because the rule book doesn't support your position.

[refiator]

I recently had a triple whistle....Good double for the lead and trail, but the C reached through and past the lane.....I was trail, and held to give the call to the lead, who came out with a block (which was the correct call), but the C did not hold his whistle and signaled player control.... YUCK.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Couldn't say. Where does it tell what to do if you signal one thing and realize you should have signaled something else, or nothing at all? It happens.

Why are you always making this assumption? Dual coverage, one official sees it one way, the other sees it another.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why are you always making this assumption? Dual coverage, one official sees it one way, the other sees it another.

What assumption is that? We all realize this is what happened. I think we all realize that the two opposing views should not result in opposing signals.

But if they do, decide which call is best and go with it.

[refiator]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why are you always making this assumption? Dual coverage, one official sees it one way, the other sees it another.

True......BUT, you have to pregame this scenario so that officials freeze, make eye contact, and then ONE makes the signal....Typically, it is best for the lead to make this call in 2 person, or if the ball comes from the trail's area in 3 person.