Purdue - IU Blarge

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Out of curiosity, how would you explain it to a coach in a close game that knows the rule and just had his best ball handler (or shooter or big man) foul out, while the other team's player doesn't? Let's say they both had 4 fouls.

Not sure an explanation is necessary, but if you feel that it is, in this case the explanation is clearly that: "My partner had a better look at it, coach."

[asdf]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not sure an explanation is necessary, but if you feel that it is, in this case the explanation is clearly that: "My partner had a better look at it, coach."

and when the coach says....

"But by rule this is a double foul" .....


your response is ??

[BigT]

Originally Posted by asdf

and when the coach says....

"But by rule this is a double foul" .....


your response is ??

We want to screw one of you.. could you give us 5 minutes to decide who was a dumnut and we will get back to you...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by asdf

and when the coach says....

"But by rule this is a double foul" .....


your response is ??

Are we talking NFHS? "No, it isn't."

[RefCT]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Are we talking NFHS? "No, it isn't."

Are you trolling us or being serious?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Are you trolling us or being serious?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not sure an explanation is necessary, but if you feel that it is, in this case the explanation is clearly that: "My partner had a better look at it, coach."

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not sure an explanation is necessary, but if you feel that it is, in this case the explanation is clearly that: "My partner had a better look at it, coach."

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