E-mail to the top

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Enlighten us, please. What is the right question?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Enlighten us, please. What is the right question?

If I am not mistaken, you did not ask about preliminary signals. You asked about calls as if only calls are what we are discussing here. Maybe I should go back and read what you said and not completely from memory, but I did not see you ask about an official making a signal in your email to Ms. Wynn.

Peace

[ronny mulkey]

Rut,

Somewhere back there, JAR has been very clear that he thinks the case play that most people refer to does NOT apply to the scenario where two officials come together to discuss conflicting signals. He thinks the case play refers to two officials that remain steadfast with their "rulings" therefore they would use the double foul process outlined in the existing case play. But, because the case play does not expressly forbid it, he thinks that it is okay for officials to discuss and come away with one ruling.

If you also consider that the case play went through a minor change in the wording "rules" verses "calls", then his slant is interesting. At least, to me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

If you also consider that the case play went through a minor change in the wording "rules" verses "calls", then his slant is interesting.

Once again, a case of the NFHS making an "unannounced" editorial change, with no explanation. Why?" Why? Inquiring minds want to know.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Rut,

Somewhere back there, JAR has been very clear that he thinks the case play that most people refer to does NOT apply to the scenario where two officials come together to discuss conflicting signals. He thinks the case play refers to two officials that remain steadfast with their "rulings" therefore they would use the double foul process outlined in the existing case play. But, because the case play does not expressly forbid it, he thinks that it is okay for officials to discuss and come away with one ruling.

If you also consider that the case play went through a minor change in the wording "rules" verses "calls", then his slant is interesting. At least, to me.

No he hasn't. The issue has long been discussed beyond this discussion or recent thread where he decided to contact Ms. Wynn. And if he wanted true clarification, then make it clear what we have discussed here and what he has actually debated. Do not leave out the most important part of the discussion. If he wants a true answer, then ask that part of the question. If he wants to get what he got with "The officials must come together and decide...." then ask the question he did. No one here to my knowledge has said simply blowing the whistle means we have to stand by our calls each. It is clear the issue is the preliminary signal and if we still go to a double foul.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If I am not mistaken, you did not ask about preliminary signals. You asked about calls as if only calls are what we are discussing here. Maybe I should go back and read what you said and not completely from memory, but I did not see you ask about an official making a signal in your email to Ms. Wynn.

Peace

I think the question needs to be along the lines of "At what point does it become a required double foul? When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a prelimninary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a preliminary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

... When one reports to the table and the other comes along, pushes his partner out of the way, and reports a conflicting call?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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 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...

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think the question needs to be along the lines of "At what point does it become a required double foul? When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a prelimninary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

Bob, I did ask that. And the answer I got was the same answer that JAR got. It seems to me that it is required after the two would come together and not agree on one or the other.