Alternating Possession Question NFHS

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CDurham

Well if you have 2 giving signals then everyone has seen it and you have no choice to go with the Double. But if only 1 has given their signal then you have a chance to just penalize theirs if the other official agress, rather than going with the Double in the instance of both giving their signal.

And all this is based on what?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And all this is based on what?

You know very well what he's basing it on; and you're the only one who disagrees on the meaning.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You know very well what he's basing it on; and you're the only one who disagrees on the meaning.

New guy in the discussion, as far as I know. He says he knows it's different if both give preliminary signals. I want to know how he knows this, since it's not written anywhere. He also refers to the officials agreeing on the one call if only one prelim is given. This implies that they had a discussion. (Is this true?) I thought the consensus here was that discussion was not allowed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

New guy in the discussion, as far as I know. He says he knows it's different if both give preliminary signals. I want to know how he knows this, since it's not written anywhere. He also refers to the officials agreeing on the one call if only one prelim is given. This implies that they had a discussion. (Is this true?) I thought the consensus here was that discussion was not allowed.

Discussion is allowed, even required, but the result is pre-ordained by the case play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Discussion is allowed, even required, but the result is pre-ordained by the case play.

How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How many preliminary signals were given in the case play?

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

Good night.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

In most cases this is true. But is this not also more or less universally accepted:

While one official may not overrule another official's call, he may share information with that official which may convince him to change his own call.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates. . .

Let's not confuse JAR's stubborn unwillingness to accept legitimate authority (on this point) with a Socratic attempt to deflate illegitimate claims to knowledge.

[CDurham]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You can ask all the rhetorical questions you want, Socrates, but the fact remains 99.999% of officials, including those with ties to the rules committee, that we've talked to agree that when the case play says "call," it means "signal."

Good night.

What did I start here? Is my wording or situation not correct?