E-mail to the top

[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

[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.......

[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 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.

[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 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

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."