I'm asking a serious question. (this time:D) Is this interpretation (confer, don't confer) written anywhere? I have yet to see it. I just keep getting:
Because that's the way it is.

I thought that's what I was doing by bringing it up here. It's happened before.

Yes, you're the ONLY one I know who reads any ambiguity into the NFHS case play. To everybody else I know, the meaning is clear. Some don't like it, others understand the reasoning; but they all agree with its application.

And yet we all seem to agree it's okay to sweep the multiple foul case under the rug.

Let's take a look at the end result.

On Friday night, I had the same thing happen as was listed in the OP (except I was the lead). Double whistle, my partner had a push on A-1, and I had a block on A-2. My partner and I conversed, and we determined that the A-1 foul he saw came first. Since he had to administer the free throws, I reported the foul.

I reported A-1. B-3 is shooting two.

Let's say, instead, I reported A-1 and A-2. B-3 would still be shooting two, and I'd have a little unnecessary messy confusion to deal with. B-3 is getting his justified free throws, so it doesn't make sense to manage the game otherwise. That's why we pick one.

And it's okay with me, and everybody else, to pick one in this case, even if it was originally called as two.

But this is contrary to the case play.

If your partner had a foul on A1 then your partner should be reporting it. Why did he HAVE to administer the free throws?

I can't think of a good why one official should be reporting another official's foul. :confused:

Here's why. He was the trail, and on the required switch, would administer the free throws. He went to the end line to administer, and I hustled to the reporting area and back to the trail position.

When my partner tells me he has a foul, I trust him.

Do you make a habit of reporting your partner's fouls and vice versa? I don't understand why you would need to do this. Ever. Why was there a required switch when he was already the trail? :confused:

Seems to me that if you're going to choose between a required switch and the official reporting his own foul; I would give up the switch first. Not sure I find either to be a particularly big deal, but I've personally never relayed a foul; but I've foregone plenty of switches where the trail calls a shooting foul.

2 person mechanics are to switch on all fouls.

That said....

Be careful. That's not the NFHS mechanic on shooting fouls anymore. The caller always remains the trail, tableside if you're following NFHS mechanics.

That's what I thought.

Which to me makes more sense than the IAABO mechanic (which is the old NFHS mechanic). Trail on FTs still goes opposite, and all fouls should warrant a switch.

I'm not sure, but I think Bainsey uses IAABO mechanics.

That would explain the switch, but not shortcutting the reporting of the foul. Seems sloppy to report your partner's foul just to avoid the extra steps.

Yeah, I would rather skip the switch than relay a foul report.