Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think I'm confused now.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There's no reason to use a PC signal for a defensive charging call. There's no reason for any official to equate charging as an offense only foul. As for signals, pushing or charging, the signal is the same. Signal #33. |
Quote:
Maybe this helps. If one looks at the table of Official NFHS Signals, one will discover the signals for a push and a charge are.................the same signal. |
But what if one official signals a block and the other signals a player control foul, then what do we do?
|
A hot mess.
|
It's The Infamous Blarge ...
Quote:
Quote:
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful. RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul. The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36) |
Or
Triple whistle for action at the freethrow line and halfway across the key - (not our finest example of 6 eyes on 10 players). Two fists and one open hand in the air - we all had something different. Can you guess what we went with? The winning call came out of the C position.
|
Quote:
|
Sometimes You Feel Like A Nut, Sometimes You Don't ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
So how do we possibly get from this Quote:
to this? Quote:
The case doesn't contain the words player control. Let alone obligation based on signals which may or may not mean the same thing. |
This is like seeing magnesium being dumped in a swimming pool.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06pm. |