E-mail to the top

[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.......

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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".

Sorry, my hard drive has a 2011-12 casebook. I knew that this would happen someday. I, somehow, have got to get a newer rulebook, and casebook, on my hard drive. I'm not a good typist, so I'm not going to be typing out casebook plays anytime soon.

[Adam]

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. 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.

No, it says nothing about "reported" either (in the case play). The question is how is 'ruled' defined, and can you alter your ruling once you make it?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

No, it says nothing about "reported" either (in the case play). The question is how is 'ruled' defined, and can you alter your ruling once you make it?

1. We know the fouls were reported or we wouldn't need to know how to proceed from there.

2. This is a legitimate question.