"blarge call" high school

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think a few posters are taking JAR's "I asked a guy at camp" defense too literally.

The point is that JAR asked a guy what his common sense told him. His argument is an appeal to common sense. Common sense tells use a block/charge play is either a block or a charge (in varying degrees). If there is a close play the mechanics manual doesn't tell us to rule a double foul to cover all our bases, it tells us to make the call as best we can (by deferring, PCA, etc.). It does make common sense to gather and decide on one or the other, and that's the argument JAR was appealing to.

None of us could use that standard and expect to be taken seriously. Even at a camp you have to know who is talking to you. Not everyone is in a position to require you to do much of anything. And not only do we already have a ruling, it is in writing in the casebook of both bodies in which I work.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Even at a camp you have to know who is talking to you.

I talked to a guy at camp. It meant nothing. I talk to guys here every day, which also means nothing. It was a counter to the NOBODY agrees with you statement which I hear so frequently, nothing more.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I talked to a guy at camp. It meant nothing. I talk to guys here every day, which also means nothing. It was a counter to the NOBODY agrees with you statement which I hear so frequently, nothing more.

But you mentioned that conversation here as it relates to this issue. I have talked to a lot of people at camps, but I do not come here and mention them in the case of a rules interpretation. And like said by others, you have a way to get an answer to your question. IMO you have not accepted that fact and are acting like you have support for your position. This situation is clearly in writing and has been that way for some time now. If you want real clarification, then take it up with your state people. And even be careful about that as they might reference what everyone else here has referenced is the proper interpretation to this situation.

A long time ago I asked for an interpretation based off of a discussion we largely had here and was given one interpretation. When it was later found out there was some previous interpretations, the interpretation changed from the person I originally had asked their "opinion" on the matter.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I talked to a guy at camp. It meant nothing. I talk to guys here every day, which also means nothing. It was a counter to the NOBODY agrees with you statement which I hear so frequently, nothing more.

Have you ever considered that there might be a reason you hear that so frequently? Think about it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I talked to a guy at camp. It meant nothing. I talk to guys here every day, which also means nothing. It was a counter to the NOBODY agrees with you statement which I hear so frequently, nothing more.

No it wasn't, it was in response to our questions about asking a governing body about the ruling.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No it wasn't, it was in response to our questions about asking a governing body about the ruling.

True, and perhaps that was misleading.

I think your answer to why the multiple foul case doesn't matter it probably the most important factor in the whole discussion.

Because that is now those who write our checks expect us to call the game.

If that's the single reason why guys feel obligated to go with two fouls here it's easy enough to understand. The one thing that is certain is this doesn't apply to me in this case, so I'm free to follow the rule as I see it.