E-mail to the top

[just another ref]

I took the advice of the group. I sent the following e-mail to:

Theresia D. Wynns

Director of Sports and Officials Education

National Federation of State High School Associations

Subject: 4.19.8c


Madam:


Some associates and I have discussed this case which involves two officials making conflicting calls on a block charge play at great length and still have disagreement about when both fouls must be reported and when one may defer to the other. Also we are pondering the significance of the editorial change in the case this year changing "the official calls" to "the official rules."

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

[just another ref]

If anybody thinks this question was somehow not properly structured, now would be the time to say so. A follow up is always possible.

[JRutledge]

They are probably going to tell you that you need to go to your state representative for a ruling or interpretation.That has been the modus operandi in the past of the National Federation.

Peace

[just another ref]

Her reply:

If there are double whistles, the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen and which may have come first. In fact when there are two whistles the officials should immediately hold the signal for the infraction and have the discussion. If one defers to the other then the signal is given and the official moves to the table to report. If they cannot come to an agreement, then they rule a double foul and both players will report (it does not matter who reports first). Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.



Officials make rulings on the floor; therefore, the language should reflect that.

Interesting cuz she never directly addresses what to do when conflicting signals are given before the refs get together, but then says this:

Originally Posted by just another ref

Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.

[OKREF]

I got this from our association.


In a the case of the double whistle as you have described.....the
mechanic would be for the officials to confer and then report the foul they
believed to have occurred first----just because two whistles were sounded
would not demand that two fouls had to be reported...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If anybody thinks this question was somehow not properly structured, now would be the time to say so. A follow up is always possible.

It's so poorly constructed, given the context, you would need to start over.

"Dear Madame,
Is this case play meant to cover the situation where two officials give conflicting signals on the same block/charge play?"

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I took the advice of the group. I sent the following e-mail to:

Theresia D. Wynns

Director of Sports and Officials Education

National Federation of State High School Associations

Subject: 4.19.8c


Madam:


Some associates and I have discussed this case which involves two officials making conflicting calls on a block charge play at great length and still have disagreement about when both fouls must be reported and when one may defer to the other. Also we are pondering the significance of the editorial change in the case this year changing "the official calls" to "the official rules."

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

You asked someone who is a female official for a ruling on a situation which has different interpretations between NCAAM and NCAAW. Which ruling do you think that she is going to respond with? Duh!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You asked someone who is a female official for a ruling on a situation which has different interpretations between NCAAM and NCAAW. Which ruling do you think that she is going to respond with? Duh!

I asked someone who is the editor of the NFHS books, which have absolutely nothing to do with NCAA men or women.

DUH

[Rich]

If she has taken Struckhoff's job, her opinion carries weight.

I'd love to see this be one of the clarifications issued at the beginning of next season.

Till something's changed or announced more publicly, it really doesn't change anything. Not going to tilt at windmills.

All these things are simply random choices by the people in charge at the time. Times change. Shrug.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Till something's changed or announced more publicly, it really doesn't change anything.

It seems to me that she simply read the case and interpreted it literally, which is all that I have ever done. The question is when was anything announced publicly in the first place which stated anything else?

Originally Posted by Rich

If she has taken Struckhoff's job, her opinion carries weight.

I'd love to see this be one of the clarifications issued at the beginning of next season.

Till something's changed or announced more publicly, it really doesn't change anything. Not going to tilt at windmills.

Good points. I hope whatever the final decision that this lady decides to make he interp public somehow. Until that happens I can't exactly operate this way while appealing to "some guy who sent an email to the NFHS editor on an online Forum" (no offense JAR).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Good points. I hope whatever the final decision that this lady decides to make he interp public somehow. Until that happens I can't exactly operate this way while appealing to "some guy who sent an email to the NFHS editor on an online Forum" (no offense JAR).

None taken. A public statement here would be okay, but I would be very surprised if this prompted one. My impression here is that this case play is not something she has given a lot of thought.

"Here's what it says, so here is what you do. If your superiors tell you to do something else, do that."

Exactly what I've always said.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You asked someone who is a female official for a ruling on a situation which has different interpretations between NCAAM and NCAAW. Which ruling do you think that she is going to respond with? Duh!

So is this a case of not reading carefully, or are you seriously blasting him because he dared ask a woman for an answer???

Either way...holy crap!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So is this a case of not reading carefully, or are you seriously blasting him because he dared ask a woman for an answer???

Either way...holy crap!