E-mail to the top

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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!

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

DUH

[Rich]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Till something's changed or announced more publicly, it really doesn't change anything.

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?

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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!

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

Either way...holy crap!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

Either way...holy crap!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

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.

But you can?

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."

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

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.

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.

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."

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

[JRutledge]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The casebook is clear.

I know that some respected members of this Forum disagree with me, but, at least in my mind, the casebook always trumps the rulebook. Casebook plays deal with very specific situations, and give a very clear answer as to how to handle that situation. If A happens, then B is the "official" NFHS interpretation, and you penalize with C. In the words of JRutledge, "Clear".

But I hate it when the casebook play doesn't quite match up with the rules, as written. I'm the kind of guy that always wants to know why, and I don't always get that with casebook plays.

On the other hand, when you make a call, maybe a crucial call, and the coach, athletic director, or assigner, or maybe a rookie official, or maybe your partner, comes to you, with casebook in hand, and says, "The casebook play says that when A happens, the interpretation is B and you penalize with C. Why did you interpret A with D, and penalize with E?".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I know that some respected members of this Forum disagree with me, but, at least in my mind, the casebook always trumps the rulebook. Casebook plays deal with very specific situations, and give a very clear answer as to how to handle that situation. If A happens, then B is the "official" NFHS interpretation, and you penalize with C. In the words of JRutledge, "Clear".

But I hate it when the casebook play doesn't quite match up with the rules, as written. I'm the kind of guy that always wants to know why, and I don't always get that with casebook plays.

On the other hand, when you make a call, maybe a crucial call, and the coach, athletic director, or assigner, or maybe a rookie official, or maybe your partner, comes to you, with casebook in hand, and says, "The casebook play says that when A happens, the interpretation is B and you penalize with C. Why did you interpret A with D, and penalize with E?".

The entire purpose of the casebook is to make things clear as to how the rules are to be applied. The rulebook is not going to cover every situation. It never was intended to. The casebook tells us how to figure out what the application should be.

And I wish that the NF would put in interpretations they intend to still apply rather than take them out of the casebook to fit in other plays. Either expand the book or do not get upset when people do not follow what they did not know was intended. But this case play has never left the casebook in years.

Peace

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I know that some respected members of this Forum disagree with me, but, at least in my mind, the casebook always trumps the rulebook. Casebook plays deal with very specific situations, and give a very clear answer as to how to handle that situation. If A happens, then B is the "official" NFHS interpretation, and you penalize with C. In the words of JRutledge, "Clear".

But I hate it when the casebook play doesn't quite match up with the rules, as written. I'm the kind of guy that always wants to know why, and I don't always get that with casebook plays.

On the other hand, when you make a call, maybe a crucial call, and the coach, athletic director, or assigner, or maybe a rookie official, or maybe your partner, comes to you, with casebook in hand, and says, "The casebook play says that when A happens, the interpretation is B and you penalize with C. Why did you interpret A with D, and penalize with E?".

BillyMac,

I think that JAR would explain to the coach, "I agree with my partner that he/she had a much better look since the play was in his primary. But, if my partner and I still wanted to stick with our rulings after consulting with each other, then we would go with the double foul similar to the case play in that book."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

The casebook is clear about what to do when both fouls are reported. The question is whether both fouls must be reported when conflicting signals are given. The answer was no. But if you didn't understand the question, I suppose it is no surprise that you didn't understand the answer.