At the end of the day, the rules makers decided they wanted that to take place. We do not make the rules or even have much suggestion other than a survey. So if they want that changed, they will change it. And it will still be "flawed" in my eyes because the coach or player that has the "wrong" call called on them, we will be arguing about a different aspect of the rule. Again, you are not going to make everyone happy and I would not try to. The rule is the rule, not much I am going to worry about it at this point.

Peace

Are you trolling us or being serious?

Serious answer:

I would likely get myself ejected and then do everything I could after the fact to get you fired.

For everyone else, you may just as well ignore JAR on this topic. He's been on his island for a while on this and he's not climbing into a lifeboat anytime soon.

And the coach that has been on the "better look" official all game as having it out for them, that is going to go over well. At least the "blarge" is now preventable as it is rare that anyone has these in the first place. But now in this situation you pick one and we know how well coaches just accept our positions on everything we call.

Peace

Absolutely serious. We have debated this multiple times over the years. Yes, the famous case play tells us how to proceed when this call is made. But the question is when this is necessary. The case says one official "rules" one thing and the other the opposite. Nothing says that either official cannot change his "ruling" at any point before it is reported. Nothing about signals in the case play, preliminary or otherwise. I was advised to take my argument to a higher power, so I did. Sent an email to the editor of the NFHS books and she agreed with me, along with my assignor and the supervisor of officials in my state.

She did not simply agree with you. She stated a position and you did not inform her of the conflict to that position (according to your posting her). She gave you a position of a level she came from, which might have been correct for that level, but was not for the level she took over. And she also did not change anything as in the current book the interpretation or language has not at all changed. Again, I do not know what your supervisor of your state does, if I recall they had a mechanic that no one in the country ever did with their 2 person system based on what someone said that once was in the NF Rules Editor position. So what your local state does is great, but then make that clear. No person in my state has taken that position and this situation has come up multiple times since we had that conversation about what Mrs. Wynn apparently responded to you.

Peace

I have no idea what this means.

This is a quote from her email:

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


I don't know how much more plain it can be.

and you didn't have the guts to challenge her...... (it's not the first time she was wrong)

that makes it worse

Challenge her about what?

About issuing a ruling contrary to the rules and case play that she presided over.


Why didn't she see to it that this was publicized to all FED members? (I know the answer)

Obviously, I don't see it as contrary. A bunch of people here read the email who do see it as contrary. As far as I know, nobody else contacted her.

Ok....

how about a link or an official correspondence from your state advising how this is to be handled?

you would be wrong

That's why I said as far as I know. So enlighten me. Who else did contact her, and what was the result?

Don't have one. Don't need one.