Alternating Possession Question NFHS

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You know very well what he's basing it on; and you're the only one who disagrees on the meaning.

New guy in the discussion, as far as I know. He says he knows it's different if both give preliminary signals. I want to know how he knows this, since it's not written anywhere. He also refers to the officials agreeing on the one call if only one prelim is given. This implies that they had a discussion. (Is this true?) I thought the consensus here was that discussion was not allowed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

New guy in the discussion, as far as I know. He says he knows it's different if both give preliminary signals. I want to know how he knows this, since it's not written anywhere. He also refers to the officials agreeing on the one call if only one prelim is given. This implies that they had a discussion. (Is this true?) I thought the consensus here was that discussion was not allowed.

Discussion is allowed, even required, but the result is pre-ordained by the case play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Discussion is allowed, even required, but the result is pre-ordained by the case play.

How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

Good night.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

In most cases this is true. But is this not also more or less universally accepted:

While one official may not overrule another official's call, he may share information with that official which may convince him to change his own call.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates. . .

Let's not confuse JAR's stubborn unwillingness to accept legitimate authority (on this point) with a Socratic attempt to deflate illegitimate claims to knowledge.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Let's not confuse JAR's stubborn unwillingness to accept legitimate authority (on this point) with a Socratic attempt to deflate illegitimate claims to knowledge.

Agree. Assign it where it really belongs. Sheer stoopidity.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree. Assign it where it really belongs. Sheer stoopidity.

Well, I didn't want to go there because the vast majority of his posts are spot on. Just this one point seems to stick for him. I confess it seems a little odd to me.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

Good night.

What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CDurham

What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?

It's not you; you're caught in the cross-fire of an age-old "debate," one that is mostly carried on in abbreviated fashion (and so a little hard to follow) because we find JAR's position so annoying.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's not you; you're caught in the cross-fire of an age-old "debate," one that is mostly carried on in abbreviated fashion (and so a little hard to follow) because we find JAR's position so annoying obviously wrong.

Fixed it for you.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's not you; you're caught in the cross-fire of an age-old "debate," one that is mostly carried on in abbreviated fashion (and so a little hard to follow) because we find JAR's position so annoying.

What is this debate??