Um, yes, you sureasheck have been missing something in the actual rulebook.

You've been missing NFHS rule 10-6-2 which states "A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental in attempt to play the ball."

Pretty definitive, isn't it? But unfortunately, a lot of officials choose to ignore this rule. And that's why the NFHS has to issue almost yearly POE's to remind us they want it called.

You are right, it is an opinion. Which means I and others can disagree with that opinion. ;)

Yep.

That does not say two hands is a foul an one and is not. ;)

And this is not an issue about ignoring anything (for me) this is if there is support that this is an automatic foul to have two hands on a player no matter what. There are rules that contradict each other even if I accept your position. If two hands is not incidental contact, then the rules should say that. It does not at this point.

I call at least one or two hand checks just about every single game I work. I can only think of one game where I probably did not have a single hand check this year. I am not arguing that it should be called; I am saying I do not agree with the definition that some want to say must be adhered to.

Peace

Agree. Kinda like belts.



Kinda like blarges.

You keep trying to bring that issue into every discussion. No, this has nothing to do with that discussion. Absolutely nothing to do with that discussion.

Nice try, but there are rules on this too.

Peace

The point was a big majority of the calls we make involve an opinion.

As for a comparison between a blarge and a handcheck , there was at least a POE which directly stated: "....when a player continuously places a hand on the opposing player, it is a foul." "When a player places both hands on an opposing player, it is a foul."

If there has ever been anything printed in any NFHS publication regarding a blarge which states anything about signals, preliminary or otherwise, I have yet to see it. Which means all this was somebody's interpretation. (opinion) But it ain't mine.

That is great, but what do we do when it is not a POE? Where do we reference those rules?

I guess you have never seen 4.19.8 Situation C. Or is the casebook not a NF Publication? :rolleyes:

Peace

officiating.com :D



Yeah, I'm vaguely familiar. Quote the part about signals, please.

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

I take it that if an official calls either foul, they signaled. You are really trying to pull this one out of your behind are you? :eek:

Peace

Never mind, Rut.

You can run along now. :)

JAR,

Your one man crusade against the universally accepted application of the blarge is mind boggling.

Yeah, I had vowed not to go there any more, but, in my defense, he started it.


Sorry, warden.:o

Same here.

How in the heck do I get blamed for even this part of the conversation? <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253F partner%253DZSzeb008%255F%2526i%253D36%252F36%255F 19%255F1%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_1.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252F nocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egi f%253Fi%253D36%252F36_19_1%2526uiv%253D3.0/image.gif"></a>

Peace

I actually thought it was a decent comparison. Your interpretation of a handcheck, to which you are certainly entitled is contrary to some. This is true even though a direct contradiction to your position has been published. Granted this publication is not readily available to the casual observer.

My position on a blarge is widely known, so bringing it up in any context is counterproductive. I vow to avoid it in the future.

OTOH, once some NFHS lurker makes an editorial change to the case book that wipes out the minute crevice of ambiguity where JAR lives, we'll all start calling it the JAR rule, and he'll be famous.

For the NFHS lurker: the editorial change would be to replace "calls" with "calls or gives a preliminary signal for" in the third sentence of 4.19.8 SITUATION C.

+1

Bull sh1t. You're the one who brought it up in an irrelevant context.