4.19.8 C editorial change

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really? I could have sworn that you advocated that there point of no return was when it was reported....and that it shouldn't even be possible to get to the situation since the officials would talk about the call before reporting and could always resolve it to one call.

As far as I'm concerned there never was a point of no return. If I report my call and then see you start to report yours after, we can still get together and come up with one call. Show me something which says we can't.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

As far as I'm concerned there never was a point of no return. If I report my call and then see you start to report yours after, we can still get together and come up with one call. Show me something which says we can't.

Already have, dozens of times.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Already have, dozens of times.

As an interloper to the board from another forum, I generally enjoy this debate but it doesn't seem as if anyone is engaging JAR's point. Up until now, as I understood the blarge case play, making conflicting signals was considered "calling" each violation on the play and was the point of no return. Are you now saying that making conflicting signals is considered "ruling" each violation on the play? This seems a little specious simply because as you said above ruling comes before signaling.

In other words, here's how I saw the double whistle before working properly based on what I learned here:
You blow your whistle because you've ruled a charge and I blow mine because I've ruled a block. We both put our hands in the air and make eye contact and I defer to you based on coverage. You call a charge and I don't call anything.

But that's obviously not how you would word it?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by youngump

As an interloper to the board from another forum, I generally enjoy this debate but it doesn't seem as if anyone is engaging JAR's point. Up until now, as I understood the blarge case play, making conflicting signals was considered "calling" each violation on the play and was the point of no return. Are you now saying that making conflicting signals is considered "ruling" each violation on the play? This seems a little specious simply because as you said above ruling comes before signaling.

In other words, here's how I saw the double whistle before working properly based on what I learned here:
You blow your whistle because you've ruled a charge and I blow mine because I've ruled a block. We both put our hands in the air and make eye contact and I defer to you based on coverage. You call a charge and I don't call anything.

But that's obviously not how you would word it?

I think the only practical way to handle it is to base it on the signal. I have no idea why they changed to word from one that has some amount of ambiguity to another that has just as much ambiguity. It doesn't clarify anything. If they had changed the word to signals or indicated, it would have been good, but as it is, there hasn't been an improvement in the wording unless they now define "rule".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by youngump

As an interloper to the board from another forum, I generally enjoy this debate but it doesn't seem as if anyone is engaging JAR's point. Up until now, as I understood the blarge case play, making conflicting signals was considered "calling" each violation on the play and was the point of no return. Are you now saying that making conflicting signals is considered "ruling" each violation on the play? This seems a little specious simply because as you said above ruling comes before signaling.

In other words, here's how I saw the double whistle before working properly based on what I learned here:
You blow your whistle because you've ruled a charge and I blow mine because I've ruled a block. We both put our hands in the air and make eye contact and I defer to you based on coverage. You call a charge and I don't call anything.

But that's obviously not how you would word it?

We aren't engaging the point because it's been done before, a lot of time, and nothing is really new here. JAR has long argued that the case play really doesn't mean what every assigner, association, and clinic has taught that it means. If the NFHS didn't want it to mean what everyone says it means, they'vd had ample opportunity to make significant changes, or define "calls" (or "rules" now), and they haven't done it.

The wisdom of the case play is up for debate, but it's meaning really is not.

[OKREF]

I know here, with our association, any foul on a play going to the basket, with a double whistle, the lead takes it. Trail only comes up with fist, and makes no other preliminary signal. This is covered in pregame. Any double whistle belongs to the lead.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I know here, with our association, any foul on a play going to the basket, with a double whistle, the lead takes it. Trail only comes up with fist, and makes no other preliminary signal. This is covered in pregame. Any double whistle belongs to the lead.

In an ideal world....

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In an ideal world....

I've had the same partner for almost 10 years and this is the way we do it every game. The trail defers to the lead on a double whistle.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

JAR has long argued that the case play really doesn't mean what every assigner, association, and clinic has taught that it means. If the NFHS didn't want it to mean what everyone says it means, they'vd had ample opportunity to make significant changes, or define "calls" (or "rules" now), and they haven't done it.

For the record, if y'all say that "everybody" you deal with wants it called this way, no doubt that is what you should do. But, conversely, nobody I deal with has told me this, so it is left to my own interpretation. But, I think most would agree that it is at least difficult to reach this conclusion strictly from reading the case play, before or after the revision.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

For the record, if y'all say that "everybody" you deal with wants it called this way, no doubt that is what you should do. But, conversely, nobody I deal with has told me this, so it is left to my own interpretation. But, I think most would agree that it is at least difficult to reach this conclusion strictly from reading the case play, before or after the revision.

No, not really. Frankly, I don't see any other reasonable meaning for it, regardless of whether they use "calls" or "rules." To me, the options are:

1. It means what we say it means (and you're the only one I've ever seen make the opposing argument).
2. It only applies when both officials are being obstinant or oblivious to one another.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

1. It means what we say it means (and you're the only one I've ever seen make the opposing argument).

Okay, say majority rules. It does mean what you say it means. Are you telling me that you think it is logical to conclude from reading this play that signals should be binding, or are you just saying that this is the lesser of the evils and that's the way it has to be.

I accept it if you say " 'Cause my boss says so."

I will never accept it if you say this is a logical conclusion after reading the case, before or after.