Simeon (IL) vs DeSoto (TX) Blarge

[twocentsworth]

So let me see if I understand this JAR...I can blow my whistle, signal a violation/rules infraction, confer with my partner, and simply change my mind/partner can overrule me?

Coach: "you blew the whistle & signaled!"
Me: "you're right. It was in my primary 2ft from me, but my partner says we can't call that foul on the other teams' best player...that would be his 5th."
Coach: WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
Me: "Coach, doesn't matter if I signaled it. It's NOTHING til I report it."

I guess I understand it better now.

[APG]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

So let me see if I understand this JAR...I can blow my whistle, signal a violation/rules infraction, confer with my partner, and simply change my mind/partner can overrule me?

Coach: "you blew the whistle & signaled!"
Me: "you're right. It was in my primary 2ft from me, but my partner says we can't call that foul on the other teams' best player...that would be his 5th."
Coach: WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
Me: "Coach, doesn't matter if I signaled it. It's NOTHING til I report it."

I guess I understand it better now.

Not that I agree with JAR on anything blarge related, there are plenty of scenarios where one "blow[s] [the] whistle, signal[s] a violation/rules infraction, confer[s] with [a] partner, and simply change [one's] mind/partner [overrules]."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

Not that I agree with JAR on anything blarge related, there are plenty of scenarios where one "blow[s] [the] whistle, signal[s] a violation/rules infraction, confer[s] with [a] partner, and simply change [one's] mind/partner [overrules]."

Actually, all of those typically come down to which action happened first, not two different opinions on the same play.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, all of those typically come down to which action happened first, not two different opinions on the same play.

Doesn't change my point...which was we use that process all the time for other type of situations. The big issue is they just plainly ignored an easy and straight forward rule/procedure.

[bob jenkins]

There's no new information out that's going to change anyone's mind on this.

Can't we just link to the other threads that have all the information and points on both sides and close it?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

So let me see if I understand this JAR...I can blow my whistle, signal a violation/rules infraction, confer with my partner, and simply change my mind/partner can overrule me?

Your partner cannot overrule you, that is certain. 2-6

Other than that, as far as I know we all agree that, yes, an official can blow his whistle and make a signal, then for whatever reason, report a different infraction or no infraction at all,

EXCEPT IN THIS SITUATION.

My question is why is this situation different than any other. This question has never been answered.

[Adam]

It has, you just didn't find the answer satisfactory.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

It has, you just didn't find the answer satisfactory.

The answer I recall is (paraphrasing) "Because of the case play. Even though that's not what it says, that's what they meant."

If that's the answer you mean, you're right, it's not satisfactory.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The answer I recall is (paraphrasing) "Because of the case play. Even though that's not what it says, that's what they meant."

If that's the answer you mean, you're right, it's not satisfactory.

It's exactly what it says, according to everyone but you. I can never remember if you refuse to believe it means what everyone says it means or if you just want to insist they shouldn't do it that way.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's exactly what it says, according to everyone but you. I can never remember if you refuse to believe it means what everyone says it means or if you just want to insist they shouldn't do it that way.

Actually, perhaps the biggest problem I have with the universal interpretation is when it is not applied.

"One official calls a blocking foul............the other official calls a charging foul."


Me: It says calls, not signals. Not the same thing.

Everybody else: A signal is a call. That's what it means.


BUT, if the signal (call) made by the first official is only a fist, without a preliminary signal, that call/signal doesn't matter.

The guy signaled (called) a foul, the same as the other guy. He knows what his call was, but now it doesn't matter.

Why?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, perhaps the biggest problem I have with the universal interpretation is when it is not applied.

"One official calls a blocking foul............the other official calls a charging foul."


Me: It says calls, not signals. Not the same thing.

Everybody else: A signal is a call. That's what it means.


BUT, if the signal (call) made by the first official is only a fist, without a preliminary signal, that call/signal doesn't matter.

The guy signaled (called) a foul, the same as the other guy. He knows what his call was, but now it doesn't matter.

Why?

How about this? In your games you insist that your crew do it your way. And if you happen to join a new conference/association you tell the supervisor that hired you that you will not allow blarges in your games.