E-mail to the top

[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

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.

Only for one. Everyone else draws the same conclusion.

[ronny mulkey]

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.

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)?

[Welpe]

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?

[just another ref]

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.