Hey Camron,
Have you seen the NFHS survey posted by BillyMac? The punch signal is listed in part 3.

Yup. At least I can feel good about catching those and a couple more you didn't catch before you posted. :o

Here is a picture of what I had in mind:

http://cdn.content.easports.com/medi...ENSHOT_iYQ.jpg

Could you quote the rule?

My junior year in high school, we had a snow day on a game night. Because the opponent needed the game to clinch first place outright, the game got played.

At least the following year, we beat them to clinch first place. :D

Try fishing for one of the newbies. I'm not biting. ;)

Actually, the OP brings up a serious question. The case play now reads that one official rules this and the other rules that.

In the OP the officials made conflicting rulings. We know this because one made the signal and the other told us what his ruling was. Why are they not obligated to report both fouls regardless of what signals were or were not made? I have never heard an answer to this question, satisfactory or not.

And you are the only one not understanding this too. ;)

Peace

There's nothing to understand. I thought Nevada was scolding the OP for walking away from what was described as a partial signal. I thought the OP might want an explanation of how much is too much, and when a signal is binding, and why. I know I do.

Ask your supervisors and see what they say.

As you know, the "ruling" is made whenever an official thinks in his brain block or charge. Unless jeremy341a's brain accidentally made him signal PC instead of block, you gotta report that blarge.

Otherwise just tell the coach your brain made you do the wrong signal. He'll understand.

That's the point. He did rule charge. He said so. So what in the rules makes anybody think that a signal or lack thereof has anything to do with what you gotta report.

I think the only thing we agree on is that what the coach does or doesn't understand is not that big of a deal.