Block/Charge RA Play: Off Rebound

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is the term "exploded into the chest of the defender" used in the rulebook word for word?

Peace

No, but neither is "you must go with a blarge if opposing signals are made."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, but neither is "you must go with a blarge if opposing signals are made."

It is an interpretation in the casebook. We have been over this before, you just have decided not to accept that interpretation.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, but neither is "you must go with a blarge if opposing signals are made."

Okay everyone, take a drink.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is the term "exploded into the chest of the defender" used in the rulebook word for word?

Peace

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, but neither is "you must go with a blarge if opposing signals are made."

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is an interpretation in the casebook. We have been over this before, you just have decided not to accept that interpretation.

Peace

Well, to be fair, it is about as clearly defined as faking a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, to be fair, it is about as clearly defined as faking a foul.

Nope. But if you want to believe that, go right ahead.

Peace

[Raymond]

Double fouls are clearly defined.

[just another ref]

Double fouls are clearly defined. Being required to report a double foul when conflicting signals are made, even if one offficial is willing/anxious to yield, is not stated ANYWHERE.

Multiple fouls are clearly defined, by both rule and case play, but nobody likes multiple fouls............


Back to the OP: This is not about rule wording or interpretation, it is just a question of a really close call.

Three points of view on a play like this:

"Could have gone either way."

"Good call, ref!"

"The ref screwed us!!"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Double fouls are clearly defined. Being required to report a double foul when conflicting signals are made, even if one offficial is willing/anxious to yield, is not stated ANYWHERE.

Multiple fouls are clearly defined, by both rule and case play, but nobody likes multiple fouls............


Back to the OP: This is not about rule wording or interpretation, it is just a question of a really close call.

Three points of view on a play like this:

"Could have gone either way."

"Good call, ref!"

"The ref screwed us!!"

Close it is and I accept a different judgement, yet many people kept trying to support their opinion with coach-speak non-rules or incorrect rules.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Double fouls are clearly defined. Being required to report a double foul when conflicting signals are made, even if one offficial is willing/anxious to yield, is not stated ANYWHERE.

...

A blarge is a double foul in which one official calls a foul on A1 and another official calls a foul on B1, instead of one official calling both fouls.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

A blarge is a double foul in which one official calls a foul on A1 and another official calls a foul on B1, instead of one official calling both fouls.

Sez who? By the logic of the blarge "rule" if an official anticipates, then signals a block, then immediately realizes this is the wrong call, he should be required to report a double foul.

[APG]

Why are people entertaining JAR on the subject of the blarge?

[just another ref]

I think the original point was that things are accepted as fact that are not stated in so many words in the book(s).


Having said that, I don't think that was the problem in this thread. The principles of block/charge are simple enough. The question of a description of the contact itself (extended an arm, exploded into the chest, etc.) are secondary to the question of whether the defender had LGP or not.


Having said all that, the OP is a prime candidate for a blarge, which, without question, would have been the wrong "call".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Why are people entertaining JAR on the subject of the blarge?

Exactly. Silly to even have this conversation since he always tries to bring this into unrelated conversations.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think the original point was that things are accepted as fact that are not stated in so many words in the book(s).

Not all vernacular is used in the rulebook, nor would any reasonable person expect it to be used. That is also why there is a casebook to tell us how to interpret the rules. Not every definition is clear as crystal to tell us how it can be applied. If all rules written were clear, then you would not need a casebook in the first place. And some rules or interpretations are not in the rulebook at all. Like the rule where the casebook talks about giving a T for a delay tactic with less than 5 seconds on the clock. That is an interpretation that is not anywhere in the rulebook to call a technical foul for that specific act.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Why are people entertaining JAR on the subject of the blarge?

Because they're trying to get me drunk.