Simeon (IL) vs DeSoto (TX) Blarge

[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.

[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.

[rockyroad]

On a side note...had a non-blarge in my game Friday night. As L, drive came from T's area...crash right in front of me. I hit the whistle and yell block and T is coming in yelling offense...he comes to me and asks me if I saw the offensive player shove off with his left arm...said that I had not and told him to take it to the table...he did...caught no grief from anyone.

So to ask the question again...the case play says one official "called" this, other "called" that...so at what point has something been "called"?

[JRutledge]

And with that being said, in my area and the college conferences I work for this certainly would be the case. But it was a joke and not meant to be serious. Honestly I cannot think anyone is seriously debating this issue anyway when the rules and casebook have made this rather clear. And to debate that should be a bigger issue of maturity.

Peace

[Adam]

My other option was to lock it. Let's keep it civil.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So to ask the question again...the case play says one official "called" this, other "called" that...so at what point has something been "called"?

There, it's not just me, now. Somebody answer him, please.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

My other option was to lock it. Let's keep it civil.

If what you took was out of line, then you might as well close the thread. I thought that exchange was very civil. We have a person that thinks what is in the casebook is not real and honestly is the only person I have ever had a conversation that wanted to believe under NF rules that this procedure is flawed. And we all know that there are more than rules that keep people from being hired. Honestly all of what I said was in jest.

Peace

[Adam]

I know, Jeff. I just thought the other stuff was over the top.

[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?