Hand checking

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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."

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

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

officiating.com

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

Peace

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

officiating.com

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?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

"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?

Peace

Never mind, Rut.

You can run along now.

[APG]

JAR,

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

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

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.