Only for one. Everyone else draws the same conclusion.

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!

need 2 case plays?
 

JAR,

Just so I understand your position:

You think that the case play refers to two officials who remain steadfast in their calls? But, the case play does NOT apply to the situation where two officials are coming together and discussing their calls and then, one official defers to the other ( regardless of signaling)?

I'd also like to know who this person is? I see her title but does she have authority from the NFHS to issue interpretations? Is she on the rules committee?

Okay, here's the rest of it.

Me: Thanks for the quick response. The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation. Please advise.


Her: It does not change the equation. They still should come together and talk to make a final decision. If the decision is to go one way over another then that person goes to the table to report. If no one wants to give in, then they go to the table to report both fouls.

Ultimately, you should talk with your state office to determine if this is the direction they want the officials to go.

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

DUH

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.

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?

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.

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

Either way...holy crap!

:)

It's not the gender of the individual offering the opinion, it's the gender of the participants that this person has spent significant time officiating that slants the viewpoint. So I'm blasting him for asking someone with years of background officiating women's games for this particular ruling when we all know that there is both a different mindset and interpretation coming from women's side of officiating. Mary Struckhoff was the same in this regard. She even implemented several mechanics to the NFHS book from the NCAAW and WNBA while serving in this role. If the current NFHS rules editor were a male with a background in women's officiating, I would make the same point. I could have worded the prior post differently, but this is what I was attempting to communicate. The opinion he got was exactly what is to be expected, given the source that he consulted.

Now both Struckhoff and Wynns have held this post for the NFHS, yet the fact is that neither one of them authored the NFHS Case Book play and neither one of them can state what that person had in mind when doing so.
Personally, and everyone that I've ever worked with, understands the NFHS ruling to match the NCAAM instruction = when two officials give conflicting preliminary signals both fouls are reported. There is no "let's see if one official will yield to the other."

Therefore, I'm telling JAR that he got exactly what is to be expected from someone with the training and mindset in officiating that she has.

The most accurate assessment of the situation in this thread is provided by Rich.
We have a new NFHS person in this position, so now this individual brings her personal take and philosophy to the rules. Just because this person reads a longtime case play in a certain way doesn't mean that it has always or should have always been understood in this manner. Conversely, that seems to be what JAR is contending. He has now found an administrator at the NFHS who agrees with his interpretation and is saying, "See I told you so. I've been right about this all these years." That's just not true. His way may indeed come to be the official NFHS policy very soon given who is currently tasked with handling such matters, but that doesn't mean that the previous people agreed with his thinking.

Seriously, you're complaining because this is who I asked? I asked the person whose name was at the top of the list, the person who took the place of Mary Struckoff, the only name I ever recall seeing here with any administrative rules influence. And even if this interpretation does have a slant toward the women's point of view, why is that any worse than being slanted toward the men? NFHS uses the same set of rules for both.
But you can?

And this "understanding" draws its foundation from.......?



No, but what it does appear to mean is that this is the current interpretation by one high ranking administrator in this matter, and as far as she is concerned, another interpretation, no matter how prevalent, is incorrect.


I am contending NOTHING about what any administrator, past or present, might think about this or any other play. My contention, quite simply, is the same as it always was. There is no circumstance under NFHS rules where the officials are compelled to report both fouls, and there is nothing which says they may not confer before reaching their final ruling. And in spite of countless statement by numerous others, I am not the only one who sees it this way.

Ms. Wynns actually takes it even farther:

"...the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen..."

And I see this as her most powerful statement of all:

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

period

I am still baffled that this is even a question. You could have emailed the Pope and I still would be wondering why this is an issue. The Casebook is clear. Never heard anyone ever debate the valitity of the play. And her answer did not address the specifics of what we have been discussing her and what JAR seems to want to keep fighting over.

Peace