Rut, can you read at all?

The case number was in the subject line of the original e-mail.



From the second e-mail:

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.

:rolleyes:

She either did not read the play or she did not understand why you asked the question. And you did her no favors by leaving out the most important issue in this debate in your original email. And you are the only one here that things "calls" does not indicate a signal of some kind. As stated, she fell back on her experience at another level and was not aware of what it either said in the casebook by her comments or she would have made it very clear what should be done.

You can say whatever you like about me, but you are the only one arguing this point of view. Do not get mad at me because you are trying to be argumentative about how this is clearly understood. You are the only person that read this that I have ever come in contact with that is confused about what this case play does. I have even shown people after the fact and no one goes to the place you do about this play. I wonder why?

Peace

This is one hell of an assumption.

It is an assumption because of how she answered your question. She should have addressed the fact that the books she is responsible for and to for interpretations totally contradicts what she told you in her response. And if she was certain about her position, why is she asking you to contact your local association? You asked God, not Moses. If you asked the publishing body what we should do and in their literature says something, she cannot run from that stance just to give an opinion unless she wants further confusion. She has to address why there would be confusion in the first place.

Peace

Exactly. I'm 100% willing to assume that she merely applied the NCAAW philosophy without making any effort to understand the history of the case play and how it came about.

So you take the case ruling to mean that every time 2 officials have a fist in the air they are to get together and determine the call?

In the case ruling bob cited, you're saying the officials telepathically knew they that one was calling a PC and the other a Block?

If necessary, they can. Usually, when two experienced officials have a fist in the air the communication consists of one walking away, thus yielding to the other.

No, I'm saying that no matter how they knew they have the right to confer. If you don't know, and the call is uncertain, ask:

"What have you got?"

Worst case scenario is this: I'm the L. I call/rule/signal a blocking foul near the corner. The call was obvious. The defender's own coach is screaming at him. I start toward the table to report. I see my rookie partner, who was the C, peering across the lane with one fist in the air and the other hand behind his head. But now we have no choice but to report his foul as well.

So a fist up in the air doesn't indicate what each official ruled? I agree with that.

Based on the precedence in Bob's cite, I feel validated in my belief that preliminary signals are the indicator that the officials have "ruled/called" a block and PC/charge, and therefore both fouls need to be reported.

Huh?

You think that we do not know what to call and result in a double foul based on this example?

What? SMDH!!!

Peace

Not gonna try to explain anything else to Rut.

To summarize: Largely because of suggestions from others here, I took my cause to a higher source for a second opinion. Now many are unsatisfied with the results of this inquest. From my perspective one thing has changed. I had never seen either NCAA case before. Calling by NFHS rules, we are bound by neither, but I find the women's version infinitely more logical.

I think everybody will continue to do what they were already doing.

Until/unless something new comes to light, I think we're about done here.

You do not have to explain anything to me because what you are stating is silly. You seem to be confused with the idea of what a double whistle is that all of us have and compare it to what we do on a "blarge." Oh well, it is your issue.

Peace

I've been involved in two in the same season about 5 years ago. First one, we (opposing coaches) were told that since they both signaled (one a charge/one a block) both were put in the book, "by rule". Second one, they went with one call and it went against me. I argued that since both of you gave a signal, both had to be called, and I can't remember the answer, but I didn't win the argument.:(

One coach's opinion: I think the NCAA-W women's rule should be used.

Absent explicit and official (wide release) clarification by the NFHS I have to agree. We keep rehashing the same arguments that involve 1) definitions, 2) wording, and 3) several confusing case plays. Any discussion with those ingredients is bound to fail.