E-mail to the top

[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?