Simultaneous whistles

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The whistles were simultaneous. Why are they allowed to get together and decide which was first?

Because the acts were two separate acts that didn't happen at the same time.

(Give it up and find a new cause.)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Because the acts were two separate acts that didn't happen at the same time.

In the OP, maybe not, but hypothetically they could be. But, even then, it's okay to discuss and come out with a single solution if two signals were originally given?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In the OP, maybe not, but hypothetically they could be. But, even then, it's okay to discuss and come out with a single solution if two signals were originally given?

Quit being silly. You KNOW that if it is for two separate acts, by rule, the ball is dead on the first one. So you MUST figure out which occurred first.

In the blarge situation that you're alluding to, it is one single act with two expressed judgments....neither of which could have possible occurred before the other AND such that neither official's judgement is allowed to override the other.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Quit being silly. You KNOW that if it is for two separate acts, by rule, the ball is dead on the first one. So you MUST figure out which occurred first.

So now it is impossible that the two separate acts occurred at the same time? And what if they're not exactly the same? 4-19-11 says at approximately the same time.

In the blarge situation that you're alluding to, it is one single act with two expressed judgments....neither of which could have possible occurred before the other AND such that neither official's judgement is allowed to override the other.

And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Because that's the way it is (or is interpreted to be).

NCAAM and NCAAW have the same woriding on double foul (and it's at least approximately the same as FED). Yet, one interprets it one way and one the other.

Work to change it if you like. Write your state. Write the FED. Propose a rules clarification. etc. But please, please, please stop bringing it up here.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Because that's the way it is (or is interpreted to be).

I'm asking a serious question. (this time) 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.

Work to change it if you like. Propose a rules clarification. etc. But please, please, please stop bringing it up here.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And why is that? Why can the officials not get together and discuss in this one, but they can in the other one?

Seriously, you're going to have to ask the rules comittee, or submit a $#%#^%$ rules change.

[Adam]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.