The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Mar 14, 2014, 05:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E-mail BillyClyde 68 Basketball 1 Tue Feb 23, 2010 03:57pm
RE: Follow-up e-mail, huh? jdmara Basketball 8 Thu Jan 28, 2010 04:34pm
60 second officiating e-mail fullor30 Basketball 8 Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:18pm
The check is in the mail 26 Year Gap Basketball 2 Wed Apr 25, 2007 07:39pm
E-mail Cyber-Ref General / Off-Topic 5 Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:00pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1