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

[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.

[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.