The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 12, 2010, 04:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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...
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Alternating Possession Question Timer Dave Basketball 13 Thu Dec 10, 2009 09:49pm
Alternating Possession Question OFISHE8 Basketball 6 Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:57am
Fun Test Question: Alternating Possession / Throw-in NYBAREF Basketball 7 Wed Feb 19, 2003 02:17pm
Alternating possession question. Suppref Basketball 3 Thu Mar 22, 2001 03:36pm
Alternating Possession Question jshock Basketball 11 Mon Dec 04, 2000 08:34am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1