22 years, 1 blarge

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

How do the two guys who both just went up with a fist arrive at just one call?

[refiator]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How do the two guys who both just went up with a fist arrive at just one call?

That is my point with the pregame, overrated or not.
I will pregame that the lead takes this call. The trail drops, lets the lead take it, and then you can discuss your differences off of the court. This can be discussed all week with differing opinions, but at least in this case the crew does not look disjointed.

[Camron Rust]

JAR, if you were even close to right, the case play in question wouldn't need to exist at all.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

JAR, if you were even close to right, the case play in question wouldn't need to exist at all.

If it does need to exist, it needs to be reworded. As is, any way you look at it, either the case itself or its perception has holes in it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Same sh!t, different day.

Saturday.