Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
I'm starting to get that (the possibility of a discussion ending with one agreed upon ruling) but I don't quite get that "vibe" from the casebook play, even with the revised wording (rule).
Let's say that we have one official give the blocking signal (no fists, open hands), and the other give a player control signal (hand behind the head), both really selling their calls. Let's also say that the coach is a former official (we actually have a few of those around here). The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed. After the game, he points out the caseplay to his athletic director. The next morning the athletic director calls the assigner. That night, the assigner calls the referee and asks, "Why didn't you rule a double foul on that play, as the casebook play requires?". How do you answer? just another ref made me do it?
|
I have always interpreted this the same way as you. But, it does allow for some wiggle room if you buy into JAR's reasoning especially considering the wording change. And, that reasoning would be that it is a different case play than the one he is proposing.
Maybe, we need two case plays, one of which that would "allow" one ruling reporting one number IF the official defers to the primary.