I'd rather have the right call made. That said, I've had one blarge in my career and it was a situation where the T reached where he had no business reaching.

The funny thing about the blarge is that *nobody* ends up happy.

My position is not whether someone is unhappy. My position and you added something to the call like making it clear someone is choosing one over another.

That assumes that we pick the right one. I do not see how choosing makes the call "right" or that the other official had it totally incorrect. We see when only one whistle is blown how an official gets that play wrong. The remedy is not to be in that situation at all. But that does not mean we still will not have disagreements, but the rules make it a bigger issue if we both signal. I have no problem with the way the NF or NCAAM has it. And if they changed it to what NCAAW do, I would not be totally happy. NCAAW IMO have a bigger problem because they tend to not stop the clock for much of anything.

Peace

It's a little easier, though, when you start your explanation with, "by rule...."

This question has never been answered. I'll try again. How does anybody read this case play and say that a preliminary signal is the key to what must be done? Previously the wording was "one official calls one thing and the other calls something else." The argument was that, while poorly worded, the signal constitutes a call. A fist in the air is a signal, so is it not also a call? Yet the consensus seems to be that if you have just a fist and your partner reports the opposite you have no obligation to do anything. Why not? You made a call, too. Furthermore, now the word is "rules" instead of "calls". A ruling can be made with or without a signal of any kind, and certainly one can mistakenly signal one thing and then come out with the opposite ruling.


If the answer to all this is "The wording of the case play does not adequately reflect the ultimate result which was desired by the committee and/or my superiors so I will continue to follow this line of thought even though I may or may not agree with the premise," somebody tell me and I'll never bring it up again.

Meanwhile, no superior of mine has ever brought up this situation and even if I believe that was the intention of the committee I see no reason not to treat this like many of us have chosen to treat the now infamous backcourt interpretation of a few years ago...........or, I wouldn't call a ten second violation on a free throw shooter (others have said this, not me)..........or, I NEVER call three seconds, and some others we could name.

Keep fighting the good fight JAR

Makes me think of a bad 70s song.
 

All by himself. ;)

Peace

Did you cut and paste this? LOL.

I think he has this is a Word file and waiting for times like this. ;)

Peace

Like I said, this part never gets answered.

It has been answered, you just do not want to accept the answer.

Peace

Send a letter to Tom Lopes, Art Hyland, John Adams, or Donnie Vaden and see what they say.

Don't know any of them, so I don't actually know what their interpretations are. The only place I've heard this is here, from all of you, whose opinions I greatly respect for the most part.

The simple question is why does a preliminary signal clinch the deal? Why is it a call or a ruling while a fist in the air is not?

Apparently the answer is "just cuz" because I've never seen another.

Have you written your state HS ruling body and asked the question?

Never saw the need. In my association, if we have a rules interpreter, it's me. (unofficially)

Most of their information is public. Adams and Hyland post their emails on several places and they will tell you the NCAA Men's position I am sure.

Peace