Alternating Possession Question NFHS

[Adam]

If they wanted us to come up with one option, they'd tell us to do that; just as NCAAW does. Just as they do for foul vs. violation situations.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If this is truly the intent and this is the reason for it then I find this really disturbing, not to mention futile. A basketball official having a positive image with anyone is the exception, not the rule.



How do we ever know anything is right? We do the best we can. Confer, if both guys are convinced that they are right, go with both. The case play is the precedent. Without the case play, I would see it as impossible to report both fouls, because I see the case play as contradictory to block/charge definition.

Ok, so I'm cringing a little bit, knowing I'm wading back into this discussion.

jar, for all practical purposes, I agree with you. I agree with the fact the NCAA-W handle this particular situation the best. While there may be some situations where a double foul could be warranted in a blarge, the vast majority of the time it is simply two different opinions of one contact, and by rule, they both cannot be correct. But because of sloppy or incorrect mechanics, 2 officials have given differing preliminary signals.

However, what you and I think is "best" is not what the NFHS rulesmakers want us to do. In this particular case, for only this particular play, we need to follow the rule. I've mentioned my theory that the committee must think that officials are not following proper mechanics (by both officials giving a prelim signal without deferring to the primary), so they will make the outcome somewhat less desirable, in order to force the officials to do it correctly to avoid the less-desireable outcome. Perhaps the committee actually feels the appearance of one official over-ruling another is something that is more important than whether a block and charge cannot happen at the same time. But, whatever the reason, I really don't think the intent is to change some sort of rule fundamental (is it either a block or a charge?) but rather to change bad mechanics by officials.

If you want to petition the NFHS to change this rule, I will gladly sign the petition. But, in the meantime, I have to side with the others in that it is very clear in the intent on how the rule is currently written.

If it will make you feel better, I can post the same windmill picture I've posted for Snaqs in the past...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If it will make you feel better, I can post the same windmill picture I've posted for Snaqs in the past...

If he starts petitioning for a rule change, you can post the Quixote pic; otherwise I think it deserves a head-against-the-wall pic.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If he starts petitioning for a rule change, you can post the Quixote pic; otherwise I think it deserves a head-against-the-wall pic.

Or this:

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree with the fact the NCAA-W handle this particular situation the best.

When did that become a fact instead of your personal opinion?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

When did that become a fact instead of your personal opinion?

Hey, aren't all my opinions simply facts?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Or this:

Wrong end.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hey, aren't all my opinions simply facts?

We'll let you know which ones are facts.

Accompanied by the appropriate poll, of course.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We'll let you know which ones are facts.

Accompanied by the appropriate poll, of course.

Nope.

Shut up.

(Ahh...the season is here!)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you want to petition the NFHS to change this rule, I will gladly sign the petition. But, in the meantime, I have to side with the others in that it is very clear in the intent on how the rule is currently written.

Clarity is in the eye of the beholder.

"If two officials give conflicting signals on a block/charge play, both fouls must be penalized."

This would make the intent clear. If not for hearing it here, I can honestly say that it never would have occurred to me that the signals used/not used had any bearing on the case.

Is there another example of a signal, or the lack thereof, forcing a call to be made?



The case book is supposed to give examples of/explain further/clarify the meaning of things in the rulebook, is it not? There are cases, and this is one, which make huge groundbreaking strides way beyond what is written in the rule itself.

Would anyone here ever, in their wildest dreams, have considered calling a double foul on this play, based solely on the rule, if not for this case play?