Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
This case play has things in common with the NFHS play but also goes into more detail about one thing which I think is significant.
"The officials disagree."
Obviously, this is the case originally, but if the officials can confer and one can convince the other of the proper call, there would no longer be a disagreement, and no need for the double foul call. Also, I think it is significant that the word signal does not appear in either play.
|
1. I used the word "signal" specifically for you.
I knew that you would state your opinion about there being a difference between
signalling a foul and
calling a foul. The truth is that there isn't one. The NCAA rules writers use those words interchangeably.
2. The reason that I wrote that the wording was fuzzy is because I believe that this instance of "disagree" is an error and should read "agree" instead: "(Men) In (1) and (2),
the two officials disagree that the fouls
occurred simultaneously."
3. How this play was handled by Jim Burr, who is one of the best in the business and has been for some time, should serve as conclusive proof to you of how it is to be done at the NCAAM and NFHS levels. I included the NCAAW ruling from the AR as well, so that you would know that what you espouse is actually the NCAAW ruling and definitely different.