Hand checking

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

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

Same here.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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


Sorry, warden.

How in the heck do I get blamed for even this part of the conversation?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How in the heck do I get blamed for even this part of the conversation?

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

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

+1

Originally Posted by just another ref

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


Sorry, warden.

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

[Judtech]

Mark T - I will disagree with your premise, but love your plays.
As it was once explained to me and I agree with it more every year:
"Basketball IS a contact sport. Basketball is NOT a collision sport".

Play 1: Foul. HATE calling it, but I don't make em just call em. This type of play is excplicitly gone over every year.
Play 2: Incidental.

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

Oh, I wasn't prioritizing. I agree completely with you.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

APG:

If you don't notice it you are not doing your job of studying the necessary material to be a competent official.

If you are a competent (and I assume you are because you do care enough to read the stuff that is posted here and to make your opinions known) official you will officiate the game per the requirements of the interpretation. Because if you do not, then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

MTD, Sr.