E-mail to the top

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

That's what happens when your main media method involves lots of dead trees.

It's the twenty-first century. All the case plays, and all the annual interpretations, that have ever existed, if they still apply, could be easily digitally stored, and accessed with a search engine.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's what happens when your main media method involves lots of dead trees.

It's the twenty-first century. All the case plays, and all the annual interpretations, that have ever existed, if they still apply, could be easily digitally stored, and accessed with a search engine.

But here is the key, in the email Ms. Wynn said to check with your local association for an interpretation. So even if it is in the casebook, the local state association could have come up with an interpretation to be followed. And again, this is still from a person that seems to not be aware of what everyone else is doing and is arguing a point no one has been arguing previously. And JAR did not ask the right question that he wants to argue here. At least if you are going to ask the NF what they think, argue what you have been arguing here all along.

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."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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."

I'm starting to get that (the possibility of a discussion ending with one agreed upon ruling) but I don't quite get that "vibe" from the casebook play, even with the revised wording (rule).

Let's say that we have one official give the blocking signal (no fists, open hands), and the other give a player control signal (hand behind the head), both really selling their calls. Let's also say that the coach is a former official (we actually have a few of those around here). The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed. After the game, he points out the caseplay to his athletic director. The next morning the athletic director calls the assigner. That night, the assigner calls the referee and asks, "Why didn't you rule a double foul on that play, as the casebook play requires?". How do you answer? just another ref made me do it?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm starting to get that (the possibility of a discussion ending with one agreed upon ruling) but I don't quite get that "vibe" from the casebook play, even with the revised wording (rule).

Let's say that we have one official give the blocking signal (no fists, open hands), and the other give a player control signal (hand behind the head), both really selling their calls. Let's also say that the coach is a former official (we actually have a few of those around here). The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed. After the game, he points out the caseplay to his athletic director. The next morning the athletic director calls the assigner. That night, the assigner calls the referee and asks, "Why didn't you rule a double foul on that play, as the casebook play requires?". How do you answer? just another ref made me do it?

I have always interpreted this the same way as you. But, it does allow for some wiggle room if you buy into JAR's reasoning especially considering the wording change. And, that reasoning would be that it is a different case play than the one he is proposing.

Maybe, we need two case plays, one of which that would "allow" one ruling reporting one number IF the official defers to the primary.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed.

Between the arguing over language and intent, one obvious factor has been lost in this thread. By definition, a block and a charge cannot happen on the same play. It is impossible. If you do report both, you know somebody got screwed. If the two officials go with one call, hopefully it is the correct call.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

I think that I get it. Are we debating what the word "call" means? Does it mean "(preliminary) signal", or does it mean "report"?

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

If the casebook were truly clear and covered every iteration of this issue, we would not be having this discussion.

The fact is that those operating under NFHS rule sets have to respect the opinion of the head NFHS editors and interpreters, regardless of their officiating background. They have been put in that position for a reason.

I have never understood how "state" or "local association" interpretations are ever given more weight than an NFHS ruling, but somehow they are, or can be. For by-the-book states likes mine it would be preferable for Mrs. Wynns release a definitive ruling, but that does not seem likely to happen.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I think that I get it. Are we debating what the word "call" means? Does it mean "(preliminary) signal", or does it men "report"?

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

For the record, for Billy and anyone else that doesn't know, the word "calls" in this case has been replaced by the word "rules". When I first saw it, I thought if anything, the change made my position ever easier to support. Others said it made no difference, and that I was still the only one in the world who saw it that way.

And now.......