4.19.8 C editorial change

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.
...

It's obviously not the way it HAS to be, because NCAA-W doesn't do it that way. But NCAA-M, NFHS, and I believe the NBA have chosen for it to be that way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

I can't imagine a more likely intent behind that case play. If that's their intent, it's perhaps not the best way to put it, but it seems to work for 99% of the officials I know.

[PG_Ref]

As it relates to the original post, it seems that IAABO is trying to get officials to change the verbiage being used on and off the court. They are putting emphasis on saying free throw instead of foul shot, free throw lane and not paint, division line and not midcourt, etc. "Ruling" vs "call" was also on this list. This is what was relayed to us from our board's representative at the spring IAABO meeting.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

As it relates to the original post, it seems that IAABO is trying to get officials to change the verbiage (snip) "Ruling" vs "call" was also on this list.

Hmmm, this sounds vaguely familiar. Almost as if someone else had posted something very similar, rather recently. Who might have mentioned this. . . ?

Originally Posted by ME!

I know that within IAABO, Peter Webb is on a crusade to make it clear that officials make rulings, not calls. I sent him an email recently and in his reply, he edited my original email, crossing out "call" and typing "ruling" in red. So it's possible that IAABO may make changes in the case book before sending it out to members.

Additionally, the IAABO pre-season video is now officially titled "You Make the Ruling".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I can't imagine a more likely intent behind that case play. If that's their intent, it's perhaps not the best way to put it, but it seems to work for 99% of the officials I know.

Okay, say I accept that that is their intent. And if it their intent, that is what we have to do. What is the intent of 4.19.11? What's the difference?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, say I accept that that is their intent. And if it their intent, that is what we have to do. What is the intent of 4.19.11? What's the difference?

huh?

Originally Posted by 4.19.11

B1 and B2 foul A1 at the same time....

"What's the difference?" Really, what makes these even remotely related?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

huh?



"What's the difference?" Really, what makes these even remotely related?

They are both case plays related to fouls. For the 4.19.8 play it is a stretch, in my opinion, to decide what the intent is. (when do you have to report both fouls?) The 4.19.11 case play is plain and simple. It says 2 fouls occur, and you penalize both. Not if you call it, and not if you rule it, just penalize two fouls, period. My question is why is the first (murky) case play undeniable and the second, clear cut play almost totally ignored.