E-mail to the top

[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.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Same old, same old in that regard. But it did have an * prominently displayed in this year's book????

[zm1283]

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?"

This is what I've wondered all along.

I'm in JAR's camp. I follow the supposed interpretation of reporting both and going with a double foul (Haven't had a blarge yet, thankfully), but I don't agree with it. I like the NCAAW method much better.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

But it did have an * prominently displayed in this year's book?

Then I apologize for calling the NFHS a bunch of silly monkeys. So it was announced, but was the change explained?

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Rut, there were two e-mails. Apparently, you missed the second one. You were right, too. She did say to check with your state.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, here's the rest of it.

Me: Thanks for the quick response. The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation. Please advise.


Her: It does not change the equation. They still should come together and talk to make a final decision. If the decision is to go one way over another then that person goes to the table to report. If no one wants to give in, then they go to the table to report both fouls.

Ultimately, you should talk with your state office to determine if this is the direction they want the officials to go.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There were two e-mails. Apparently, you missed the second one ... The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals ...

I don't like the word "mistakenly". Neither official mistakenly gave a wrong preliminary signal. That would occur if both thought that it was a charge, and one gave a block signal. They both had what they had. No mistake was made in the preliminary signal. It's not a signaling mistake.

One of the calls was a mistake.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't like the word "mistakenly". Neither official mistakenly gave a wrong preliminary signal. That would occur if both thought that it was a charge, and one gave a block signal. They both had what they had. No mistake was made in the preliminary signal. It's not a signaling mistake.

One of the calls was a mistake.

The mistake is not what the signals were, but the fact that both made preliminary signals at all on the double whistle.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The mistake is not what the signals were, but the fact that both made preliminary signals at all on the double whistle.

I was referring to the way the play was described in the email ("mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals").

We all know what the mistake was. The play should have been a charge, and one official called a block. Or the play should have been a block, and one official called a charge.

The caseplay still doesn't encourage us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, did you get a good look at his feet?"), and come up with a single, unified call. I wish it did. Rather, it encourages us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, remember 4.19.8 Situation C ?"(Yeah. That's right. That's the way we discuss things here in my little corner of Connecticut)), and come up with the double foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was referring to the way the play was described in the email ("mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals").

We all know what the mistake was. The play should have been a charge, and one official called a block. Or the play should have been a block, and one official called a charge.

The caseplay still doesn't encourage us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, did you get a good look at his feet?"), and come up with a single, unified call. I wish it did. Rather, it encourages us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, remember 4.19.8 Situation C ?"(Yeah. That's right. That's the way we discuss things here in my little corner of Connecticut)), and come up with the double foul.

The caseplay, in my view doesn't encourage or discourage anything. The calls/rulings have already been made. This is a given. All it does is tell us how to administer the penalties. When I first saw the play I thought the whole point was that the basket could count since the foul on the offensive player is not a PC foul when it is part of a double foul.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Rut,

For this thread, his position is clear to me. If his questions to Ms. Wynn are not the same questions that you would have asked, then formulate them and request that he send them as you formulate.

For my benefit, what would your question(s) be exactly?