Gonzaga / Southern video (Added)

[icallfouls]

Regardless, I like that they did not go BLARGE and have that stoopid double foul.
I hate that the NCAA says we have to have a block and charge.

The directive is that the L has secondary defenders, I really dont see a block on this play and not sure how the L came to that conclusion. Torso-to-torso, to and through.

[Camron Rust]

The lead clearly displayed enough that anyone in the gym knew he had a block. By rule (like it or not) that should have been a double foul.

That said, the trail got it right.

But what if the lead was the one who was right? Is getting it completely backwards better than the double foul?

[icallfouls]

Please cite your rules reference.

It is not a double until both officials signal the nature of the call. Once both officials have signaled completely different calls, then they must have the double. Yes, everyone in the gym knew what he was likely to call.

However, I will say that I remember a game where I came up with two hands and actually correctly called a PC. So it is possible, though remote, he was about to signal charge.

The crew narrowly averted the BLarge because the L did not signal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Please cite your rules reference.

You know where it is.

Once the official has signaled a call, he's made that call. Given that no official may overrule another, when another official makes a different call, to change it is considered to be an overrule. They're stuck with both calls. The rules resolution of that is a double foul.

Sure, his signal wasn't" complete" but it was sufficient to know what it was. Once that is done where he has made his call known, in the case of a conflicting double whistle, there is no going back...by rule. That is the only reason that rule exists....to avoid the appearance of one overruling another.

And some will try to slice it by saying it should belong to the primary but I can always create a play where the primary is also ambiguous....so that still doesn't resolve it....and it is just as likely to lead to the wrong call as it would lead to the right call.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You know where it is.

Once the official has signaled a call, he's made that call. Given that no official may overrule another, when another official makes a different call, to change it is considered to be an overrule. They're stuck with both calls. The rules resolution of that is a double foul.

Sure, his signal wasn't" complete" but it was sufficient to know what it was. Once that is done where he has made his call known, in the case of a conflicting double whistle, there is no going back...by rule. That is the only reason that rule exists....to avoid the appearance of one overruling another.

And some will try to slice it by saying it should belong to the primary but I can always create a play where the primary is also ambiguous....so that still doesn't resolve it....and it is just as likely to lead to the wrong call as it would lead to the right call.

Just playing to the other side of the argument.

Citation please. It is a double whistle. The T communicated to the L to hold his preliminary, then took the call himself.

He did not signal anything other than two hands in the air, which could have been a held ball for that matter.

[LeeBallanfant]

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Ted Valentine instead of being center had been lead and was waved off by the trail.

[just another ref]

Could someone post the NCAA rule regarding a blarge?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

He did not signal anything other than two hands in the air, which could have been a held ball for that matter.

You know better than to believe that. It is, at best, dishonest to say the lead hadn't called a block.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You know better than to believe that. It is, at best, dishonest to say the lead hadn't called a block.

Well he did not actually signal anything. It might have been obvious what he was going to signal by his body language, but for all of our purposes, he never signaled. He was stopped from signaling by his partner.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

...
The directive is that the L has secondary defenders, I really dont see a block on this play and not sure how the L came to that conclusion. Torso-to-torso, to and through.

Agree. B2 arrived at the spot before A1 did and A1 was not airborne. So B2 met his obligations.

And the trail communicated the way he did because he didn't want the Lead to finish his Block mechanic. I have no problem with what he did.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Agree. B2 arrived at the spot before A1 did and A1 was not airborne. So B2 met his obligations.

And the trail communicated the way he did because he didn't want the Lead to finish his Block mechanic. I have no problem with what he did.

If the trail knew what the lead's signal was, then it was done. He overruled his partner. He may have got the right call, but he did so by breaking another rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He overruled his partner. He may have got the right call, but he did so by breaking another rule.

Don't two wrongs make a right? Wait? I'm now being told that that's only in horseshoes, and hand grenades. Never mind.