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...

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by 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...

I don't think there's anybody disagreeing on what to do on double whistles.

[Rich]

Congrats on not asking the right question.

The question must include conflicting preliminary signals at the time the foul is whistled.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rich

Congrats on not asking the right question.

The question must include conflicting preliminary signals at the time the foul is whistled.

I did ask the right question. Here's what I asked and that was the answer I got.

If there is a double whistle for instance on a block/charge, and one signals block, and one signals PC. Does
the moment of the prelim signals mean we have to report both, or could the
two officials get together and decide which to go with.

Originally Posted by OKREF

I did ask the right question. Here's what I asked and that was the answer I got.

I think Rich was referring to JAR's original post.

[Rich]

Yeah. Your association can be as wrong as it wants to be.

Personally, I don't care which way it's handled and I'd change on a dime if the NFHS put something out that said to handle it the NCAAW way.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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 Rich

Congrats on not asking the right question.

The question must include conflicting preliminary signals at the time the foul is whistled.

The reason I didn't mention conflicting signals is because I didn't want to taint the original answer. Signals are not a part of this case play, which is the main thing I have stood by since day one. If we should/must do a certain thing because of conflicting signals, that's fine. But there is no way one can draw that conclusion by reading this case play.

Don't panic. A follow up question is in the works about conflicting signals.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

...

Don't panic. A follow up question is in the works about conflicting signals.

That's the only real question, IMO, because blarges only get called in that situation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The reason I didn't mention conflicting signals is because I didn't want to taint the original answer. Signals are not a part of this case play, which is the main thing I have stood by since day one. If we should/must do a certain thing because of conflicting signals, that's fine. But there is no way one can draw that conclusion by reading this case play.

Don't panic. A follow up question is in the works about conflicting signals.

Then you did not want to know the real answer.

Peace

[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?"