Blarge Question And NFHS Response

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by sj

Would this play require anything different in the ruling or approach?

From C’s primary A1 drives along the baseline and he jumps and releases the ball on a try. Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter A1 returns one foot to the floor. The C signals a charge based on his view that B1 had established legal guarding position. The L, who is still on the other side of the lane, signals a block. His view included B1’s foot which was on the out of bounds line when contact was made.

I think this is different, the double foul is not necessary if one official is able to offer additional information that would invalidate a call by rule. Similar to how NCAA-M can change a call if an official has definite knowledge that a defender is in the RA, and they do not have to go double foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I think this is different, the double foul is not necessary if one official is able to offer additional information that would invalidate a call by rule. Similar to how NCAA-M can change a call if an official has definite knowledge that a defender is in the RA, and they do not have to go double foul.

I know you know this, but that's an NCAA precedent, based on an NCAA rule (RA). I'd be hesitant to apply it to a rule set that doesn't use the RA rule.

I'd probably go that route, but I'd be hesitant and would reach out to leadership afterwards.

[just another ref]

Well, you tell me what her final answer is. My email didn't quote the whole case play, no, but it was in the subject line. So if that swing the tide....
I asked what happens when two officials make opposite calls.
Her answer: Get together and get it right if possible. If not, report both and proceed.

Follow up question: If the two officials give conflicting primary signals, does this change anything?

Her answer: NO

Several who didn't like her previous answer said it meant nothing. So now that you do like her answer, it means.............what?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Well, you tell me what her final answer is. My email didn't quote the whole case play, no, but it was in the subject line. So if that swing the tide....
I asked what happens when two officials make opposite calls.
Her answer: Get together and get it right if possible. If not, report both and proceed.

Follow up question: If the two officials give conflicting primary signals, does this change anything?

Her answer: NO

Several who didn't like her previous answer said it meant nothing. So now that you do like her answer, it means.............what?

Her previous answer was wrong. At least she's corrected herself now.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Well, you tell me what her final answer is. My email didn't quote the whole case play, no, but it was in the subject line. So if that swing the tide....
I asked what happens when two officials make opposite calls.
Her answer: Get together and get it right if possible. If not, report both and proceed.

Follow up question: If the two officials give conflicting primary signals, does this change anything?

Her answer: NO

Several who didn't like her previous answer said it meant nothing. So now that you do like her answer, it means.............what?

You were purposely deceptive and coy in presenting your question. That's why you got that answer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Well, you tell me what her final answer is. My email didn't quote the whole case play, no, but it was in the subject line. So if that swing the tide....
I asked what happens when two officials make opposite calls.
Her answer: Get together and get it right if possible. If not, report both and proceed.

Follow up question: If the two officials give conflicting primary signals, does this change anything?

Her answer: NO

Several who didn't like her previous answer said it meant nothing. So now that you do like her answer, it means.............what?

My guess is that she got clarification later from folks that were more familiar with the history and rationale of the NFHS rule set. She's probably been inundated with emails since she sent out that incorrect ruling.

Didn't she come from NCAAW?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

't she come from NCAAW?

Yes, she did work at the NCAA I believe. She was also over the Indiana association with the officials as well. So I would have thought she would have known better, but she did have a background with the NCAA and I think that was the problem. And JAR did not ask the right question and that is also why there was confusion (mostly to him) about what there is to do.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, she did work at the NCAA I believe. She was also over the Indiana association with the officials as well. So I would have thought she would have known better, but she did have a background with the NCAA and I think that was the problem. And JAR did not ask the right question and that is also why there was confusion (mostly to him) about what there is to do.

Peace

Maybe, but his follow-up question should have cleared it up.

Regardless, she's now giving the answer everyone expected, the way everyone has interpreted the rule in the past. If the NFHS wants it done the same as NCAAW, they need to change the case play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe, but his follow-up question should have cleared it up.

Regardless, she's now giving the answer everyone expected, the way everyone has interpreted the rule in the past. If the NFHS wants it done the same as NCAAW, they need to change the case play.

When you are only looking for a certain answer, you are not going to ask a follow-up question that would clear up the issue in the first place. Heck he could have asked the question the right way from the beginning and he would have not needed a follow-up question at all. She would have known the question clearly and answered accordingly. I have emailed people and been emailed and if you ask the question right, then the issue is clearly covered.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I think this is different, the double foul is not necessary if one official is able to offer additional information that would invalidate a call by rule. Similar to how NCAA-M can change a call if an official has definite knowledge that a defender is in the RA, and they do not have to go double foul.

Apples and Oranges.

Calling it a block due to RA is a different thing than two judging the same contact as a block and a charge. There is no conflict when the RA is the reason for the block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Apples and Oranges.

Calling it a block due to RA is a different thing than two judging the same contact as a block and a charge. There is no conflict when the RA is the reason for the block.

His question was does that precedent, or concept, apply to the boundary line as well as the RA?

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Apples and Oranges.

Calling it a block due to RA is a different thing than two judging the same contact as a block and a charge. There is no conflict when the RA is the reason for the block.

Originally Posted by Adam

His question was does that precedent, or concept, apply to the boundary line as well as the RA?

Yes, the previous post had brought the situation for a block charge where the defender's foot is on the line. As Adam previously mentioned, it might not be good to use the same reasoning as the RA play, but I do still think its similar enough to justify making one call over the other.