Blarge administration

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if officials would just raise their hand we would not have to worry about this.

Peace

Originally Posted by Welpe

And cue JAR in 5...4...3...2...1...

I wasn't gonna, but since you asked.

My question is always that even if the officials did simply raise a hand, isn't that still "calling a foul"?

True, the whole world doesn't know what each official's call was at this point, but I see nothing written anywhere which says that a preliminary signal makes any call any more binding and irreversible.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I wasn't gonna, but since you asked.

My question is always that even if the officials did simply raise a hand, isn't that still "calling a foul"?

True, the whole world doesn't know what each official's call was at this point, but I see nothing written anywhere which says that a preliminary signal makes any call any more binding and irreversible.

4.19.8 Situation C (last year's casebook) says so.

"One officials calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1."

I would think that would be hard to do without a preliminary signal.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

4.19.8 Situation C (last year's casebook) says so.

"One officials calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1."

I would think that would be hard to do without a preliminary signal.

Peace

Why? You go up with a fist. Your partner does likewise. You know you what your call was going to be and so does he. It is not that unusual for you and your partner to have different calls on the same play. But it's okay to only report one of them unless you gave conflicting preliminary signals.

Where is this written?

nowhere

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Why? You go up with a fist. Your partner does likewise. You know you what your call was going to be and so does he. It is not that unusual for you and your partner to have different calls on the same play. But it's okay to only report one of them unless you gave conflicting preliminary signals.

Where is this written?

nowhere

We do a lot of things that are not written. If everything was spelled out explicitly all the time, you would not have room to change.

And it is writing the interpretation. If that is not good enough for you that is fine, but it is written. Maybe not the way you would like it to be, but you cannot have two different calls unless you tell them. Unless the NF or NCAA expects you to read minds we have to determine somehow there were two different calls. I think we are a long way from getting a reliable machine to tell what officials are actually thinking without a signal.

Peace

[just another ref]

If indeed this is the intent of the writer(s), a simple editorial change would cover it.

If 2 officials give conflicting preliminary signals on a block/charge play, both fouls must be reported.

4-19-8 and, naturally 4.19.8, deal with double fouls. The word signal does not appear in either. In theory, any call may be made after giving any signal, proper or otherwise, or no signal at all. No signal, conflicting signals, both examples of bad mechanics. But name another call that is changed by an official's failure to use proper mechanics.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If indeed this is the intent of the writer(s), a simple editorial change would cover it.

If 2 officials give conflicting preliminary signals on a block/charge play, both fouls must be reported.

4-19-8 and, naturally 4.19.8, deal with double fouls. The word signal does not appear in either. In theory, any call may be made after giving any signal, proper or otherwise, or no signal at all. No signal, conflicting signals, both examples of bad mechanics. But name another call that is changed by an official's failure to use proper mechanics.

Until now I have never heard a single person ever question the intent of this and a reason you will not likely see such a change.

Peace