"blarge call" high school

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just because you pick one of the calls does not mean someone is not going to be very happy or that they will not question the motives of the individuals making the decision.

I don't understand how this wouldn't apply to every other call in the game. Someone is ALWAYS unhappy.

[just another ref]

This question has never been answered. I'll try again. How does anybody read this case play and say that a preliminary signal is the key to what must be done? Previously the wording was "one official calls one thing and the other calls something else." The argument was that, while poorly worded, the signal constitutes a call. A fist in the air is a signal, so is it not also a call? Yet the consensus seems to be that if you have just a fist and your partner reports the opposite you have no obligation to do anything. Why not? You made a call, too. Furthermore, now the word is "rules" instead of "calls". A ruling can be made with or without a signal of any kind, and certainly one can mistakenly signal one thing and then come out with the opposite ruling.


If the answer to all this is "The wording of the case play does not adequately reflect the ultimate result which was desired by the committee and/or my superiors so I will continue to follow this line of thought even though I may or may not agree with the premise," somebody tell me and I'll never bring it up again.

Meanwhile, no superior of mine has ever brought up this situation and even if I believe that was the intention of the committee I see no reason not to treat this like many of us have chosen to treat the now infamous backcourt interpretation of a few years ago...........or, I wouldn't call a ten second violation on a free throw shooter (others have said this, not me)..........or, I NEVER call three seconds, and some others we could name.

[APG]

Keep fighting the good fight JAR

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Keep fighting the good fight JAR

All by himself.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This question has never been answered. I'll try again. How does anybody read this case play and say that a preliminary signal is the key to what must be done? Previously the wording was "one official calls
one thing and the other calls something else. The argument was that, while poorly worded, the signal constitutes a call. A fist in the air is a signal, so is it not also a call? Yet the consensus seems to be that if you have just a fist and your partner reports the opposite you have no obligation to do anything. Why not? You made a call, too. Furthermore, now the word is "rules" instead of "calls". A ruling can be made with or without a signal of any kind, and certainly one can mistakenly signal one thing and then come out with the opposite ruling.


If the answer to all this is "The wording of the case play does not adequately reflect the ultimate result which was desired by the committee and/or my superiors so I will continue to follow this line of thought even though I may or may not agree with the premise," somebody tell me and I'll never bring it up again.

Meanwhile, no superior of mine has ever brought up this situation and even if I believe that was the intention of the committee I see no reason not to treat this like many of us have chosen to treat the now infamous backcourt interpretation of a few years ago...........or, I wouldn't call a ten second violation on a free throw shooter (others have said this, not me)..........or, I NEVER call three seconds, and some others we could name.

Did you cut and paste this? LOL.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Did you cut and paste this? LOL.

I think he has this is a Word file and waiting for times like this.

Peace

[just another ref]

Like I said, this part never gets answered.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Like I said, this part never gets answered.

It has been answered, you just do not want to accept the answer.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Like I said, this part never gets answered.

Send a letter to Tom Lopes, Art Hyland, John Adams, or Donnie Vaden and see what they say.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Send a letter to Tom Lopes, Art Hyland, John Adams, or Donnie Vaden and see what they say.

Don't know any of them, so I don't actually know what their interpretations are. The only place I've heard this is here, from all of you, whose opinions I greatly respect for the most part.

The simple question is why does a preliminary signal clinch the deal? Why is it a call or a ruling while a fist in the air is not?

Apparently the answer is "just cuz" because I've never seen another.