[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's not the gender of the individual offering the opinion, it's the gender of the participants that this person has spent significant time officiating that slants the viewpoint. So I'm blasting him for asking someone with years of background officiating women's games for this particular ruling when we all know that there is both a different mindset and interpretation coming from women's side of officiating. Mary Struckhoff was the same in this regard. She even implemented several mechanics to the NFHS book from the NCAAW and WNBA while serving in this role. If the current NFHS rules editor were a male with a background in women's officiating, I would make the same point. I could have worded the prior post differently, but this is what I was attempting to communicate. The opinion he got was exactly what is to be expected, given the source that he consulted.

Seriously, you're complaining because this is who I asked? I asked the person whose name was at the top of the list, the person who took the place of Mary Struckoff, the only name I ever recall seeing here with any administrative rules influence. And even if this interpretation does have a slant toward the women's point of view, why is that any worse than being slanted toward the men? NFHS uses the same set of rules for both.

Now both Struckhoff and Wynns have held this post for the NFHS, yet the fact is that neither one of them authored the NFHS Case Book play and neither one of them can state what that person had in mind when doing so.

But you can?

Personally, and everyone that I've ever worked with, understands the NFHS ruling to match the NCAAM instruction = when two officials give conflicting preliminary signals both fouls are reported. There is no "let's see if one official will yield to the other."

And this "understanding" draws its foundation from.......?

We have a new NFHS person in this position, so now this individual brings her personal take and philosophy to the rules. Just because this person reads a longtime case play in a certain way doesn't mean that it has always or should have always been understood in this manner.

No, but what it does appear to mean is that this is the current interpretation by one high ranking administrator in this matter, and as far as she is concerned, another interpretation, no matter how prevalent, is incorrect.

Conversely, that seems to be what JAR is contending. He has now found an administrator at the NFHS who agrees with his interpretation and is saying, "See I told you so. I've been right about this all these years."

I am contending NOTHING about what any administrator, past or present, might think about this or any other play. My contention, quite simply, is the same as it always was. There is no circumstance under NFHS rules where the officials are compelled to report both fouls, and there is nothing which says they may not confer before reaching their final ruling. And in spite of countless statement by numerous others, I am not the only one who sees it this way.

Ms. Wynns actually takes it even farther:

"...the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen..."

And I see this as her most powerful statement of all:

"Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do."

period