K-State/West Virgina Almost Blarge

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Can he bail out of his call at that point?

Where is it written that one cannot "bail out of one's call" at any point?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where is it written that one cannot "bail out of one's call" at any point?

Speaking Fed, oh you know in that silly thing called the Case book that you evidently don't like.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Speaking Fed, oh you know in that silly thing called the Case book that you evidently don't like.

No, he asked the question, the same one I have asked before: When does a signal, or, in this case apparently, a partial signal, become binding? It is undisputed, I think, that in no other situation is a signal binding at all.
So when, and why, is it binding in this case?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, he asked the question, the same one I have asked before: When does a signal, or, in this case apparently, a partial signal, become binding? It is undisputed, I think, that in no other situation is a signal binding at all.
So when, and why, is it binding in this case?

A signal has been given once it has been received. If someone could tell you were indicating a block, you've given enough of it to be received. Likewise for a charge. When both signals has been sufficiently given in such that it was apparent what each person had, you are stuck with a blarge.

As for why it is the case in this situation, well, we've been through that before. Two judgments of the same play have been made and communicated. You can default to one or the other through some automatic protocol but that doesn't make the resulting call the right call. For that matter, it is probably so close that you could make a valid argument that either call was right.

[just another ref]

Good answer. Perhaps it will impress the jury. Now for the rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Two judgments of the same play have been made and communicated.

So what? On any other play, the official can make a signal, then go with something else. If called upon for an explanation, it's simply, "I made a mistake, which I realized afterward." This can apply to either the signal or the call itself. Does this look good? Of course not. But it is a part of the human element.

You can default to one or the other through some automatic protocol but that doesn't make the resulting call the right call. For that matter, it is probably so close that you could make a valid argument that either call was right.

Nothing we do insures that any call is the right call. The only thing certain if you go with a blarge is that the wrong call is a part of the call.

[tjones1]

I saw it live...but didn't see what the outside official (can't remember if he was C or T) did.

However, a few seconds later you can see one of the officials saying to a player: "I never signaled block."

Not seeing it all, I have to believe him... he knows there's cameras all over the place. If he signaled block he wouldn't have a choice.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I saw it live...but didn't see what the outside official (can't remember if he was C or T) did.

However, a few seconds later you can see one of the officials saying to a player: "I never signaled block."

Not seeing it all, I have to believe him... he knows there's cameras all over the place. If he signaled block he wouldn't have a choice.

He brought his hands up and started to bring them down (to get the call correct) then realized his partner had a whistle. They probably came down 4 to five inches. The player on the floor who had been blocked saw it and thought he had earned the call. As soon as the signal came in for a charge he immediately went to that official pointing out the other official had called a block.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Speaking Fed, oh you know in that silly thing called the Case book that you evidently don't like.

Do not feed the bears