Vanderbilt v. Wisconsin: RA Play

[Raymond]

Since the C went 2 fists up initially it wouldn't look very credible for him to then come in and say B1 was not in the RA. If he had just went with a fist or had no whistle then I say he should come in and offer information.

And this play is why I'm not big on "selling" calls that should just be routine calls. The Lead "sold" the RA aspect of the foul but was wrong. Makes the crew look bad.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Since the C went 2 fists up initially it wouldn't look very credible for him to then come in and say B1 was not in the RA. If he had just went with a fist or had no whistle then I say he should come in and offer information.

And this play is why I'm not big on "selling" calls that should just be routine calls. The Lead "sold" the RA aspect of the foul but was wrong. Makes the crew look bad.

Well, since they both had a block - which, again, I don't think was the correct call - there wouldn't have been a need for the C to give help.

Meantime, according to one of my interpreters an official can provide help if one member of the crew signals a defender was in the RA when the defender actually wasn't.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Well, since they both had a block - which, again, I don't think was the correct call - there wouldn't have been a need for the C to give help.

Meantime, according to one of my interpreters an official can provide help if one member of the crew signals a defender was in the RA when the defender actually wasn't.

That is true. That's why I made the comment about credibility. The C himself was going to a block signal. For him then to go to the Lead, who was making the same call, to say the player was not in the RA would be impossible to explain.

[Rich]

Watching this, I still think the RA is too small.