E-mail to the top

[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."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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."

I'm starting to get that (the possibility of a discussion ending with one agreed upon ruling) but I don't quite get that "vibe" from the casebook play, even with the revised wording (rule).

Let's say that we have one official give the blocking signal (no fists, open hands), and the other give a player control signal (hand behind the head), both really selling their calls. Let's also say that the coach is a former official (we actually have a few of those around here). The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed. After the game, he points out the caseplay to his athletic director. The next morning the athletic director calls the assigner. That night, the assigner calls the referee and asks, "Why didn't you rule a double foul on that play, as the casebook play requires?". How do you answer? just another ref made me do it?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm starting to get that (the possibility of a discussion ending with one agreed upon ruling) but I don't quite get that "vibe" from the casebook play, even with the revised wording (rule).

Let's say that we have one official give the blocking signal (no fists, open hands), and the other give a player control signal (hand behind the head), both really selling their calls. Let's also say that the coach is a former official (we actually have a few of those around here). The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed. After the game, he points out the caseplay to his athletic director. The next morning the athletic director calls the assigner. That night, the assigner calls the referee and asks, "Why didn't you rule a double foul on that play, as the casebook play requires?". How do you answer? just another ref made me do it?

I have always interpreted this the same way as you. But, it does allow for some wiggle room if you buy into JAR's reasoning especially considering the wording change. And, that reasoning would be that it is a different case play than the one he is proposing.

Maybe, we need two case plays, one of which that would "allow" one ruling reporting one number IF the official defers to the primary.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

It does allow for some wiggle room if you buy into JAR's reasoning especially considering the wording change.

I appreciate just another ref's reasoning, it's well thought out, and the NFHS had to make that word change for a reason. I'm just not sure what that reason was. Until I see just another ref's photo in the front of my NFHS rulebook, I'm using the "old" interpretation, if, and when, I need it, which will, hopefully, be never.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed.

Between the arguing over language and intent, one obvious factor has been lost in this thread. By definition, a block and a charge cannot happen on the same play. It is impossible. If you do report both, you know somebody got screwed. If the two officials go with one call, hopefully it is the correct call.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the two officials go with one call, hopefully it is the correct call.

Great point, a discussion between the officials would, most likely, lead to a better call, but I still don't get that from the revised casebook play.

How many times has one official signaled a held ball, and the other signaled a foul. What happens? They get together and figure out which happened first, often based on which official had the better look. And then they decide on a single call. Why can't that happen here (blarge)? Because of the casebook play. It's there in black and white. Take away the casebook play and most of us would be pleased to get together, discuss, and decide on single call. I know that I would.