E-mail to the top

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This decision results in the call, which is subsequently reported to the table. A whistle or a signal is neither a ruling nor a call.

So when you signal a travel violation, that's not ruling (decision) until you "report to the table"? My IAABO mechanics manual (not sure abut NFHS mechanics) doesn't even require us to verbalize "traveling", so I guess that we never make a real ruling (decision).

The whistle is a ruling (decision), a ruling (decision) to stop the clock, especially when accompanied by a fist, open hand, or thumbs up, signal.

When I sound my whistle, put up a fist, and then put a hand behind my head, I've ruled (decided) that player control foul has just occurred. It's as simple as that. I can later change my ruling (decision) for some reason, but at that point, that's my ruling (decision).

I'm more than willing to follow a thoughtful train of ideas from you on this interesting issue, but you're grasping at straws here.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So when you signal a travel violation, that's not ruling (decision) until you "report to the table"? My IAABO mechanics manual (not sure abut NFHS mechanics) doesn't even require us to verbalize "traveling", so I guess that we never make a real ruling (decision).

The whistle is a ruling (decision), a ruling (decision) to stop the clock, especially when accompanied by a fist, open hand, or thumbs up, signal.

I'm more than willing to follow a thoughtful train of ideas from you on this interesting issue, but you're grasping at straws here.

The ruling (decision) takes place in your head. It is immediately followed by a whistle and a signal to communicate this decision to others. This ruling (decision) can be changed before the call is reported, sometimes resulting in no call at all.

"My partner had granted a timeout before the foul."

[Raymond]

It's funny, when coaches see conflicting signals involving PC and a block, they expect a blarge to be reported. Who is teaching them that?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's funny, when coaches see conflicting signals involving PC and a block, they expect a blarge to be reported. Who is teaching them that?

Apparently you are.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apparently you are.

Nope, I only started officiating in 2001 and coaches already had that expectation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Nope, I only started officiating in 2001 and coaches already had that expectation.

First, I don't think either of us will let the expectations of a coach be the deciding factor in anything. Second, I don't think of this as something that happens often enough to create an expectation. How many have you personally been involved in?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

First, I don't think either of us will let the expectations of a coach be the deciding factor in anything. Second, I don't think of this as something that happens often enough to create an expectation. How many have you personally been involved in?

Twice, only once in a real game. It was my first year as a college official. Other official involved now refs mostly in the D-League.

The other time was in my 2nd or 3rd year as an official, in a local HS camp. It was just discussed in our morning meeting with the camp director (NCAA D1 official who started his career in my local association). It was clearly stated when to report a blarge.

But I have seen instances, mostly in camps or AAU ball, where conflicting signals were given and the coaches expected both fouls to be reported.

I didn't say coaches were the deciding factor, I asked where they learned this expectation. Because one thing is for sure, it is not officials who write the rules.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How many have you personally been involved in?

I've been involved in two in the same season about 5 years ago. First one, we (opposing coaches) were told that since they both signaled (one a charge/one a block) both were put in the book, "by rule". Second one, they went with one call and it went against me. I argued that since both of you gave a signal, both had to be called, and I can't remember the answer, but I didn't win the argument.

One coach's opinion: I think the NCAA-W women's rule should be used.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's funny, when coaches see conflicting signals involving PC and a block, they expect a blarge to be reported. Who is teaching them that?

I doubt that very few actually know that. Most coaches have a high school, or college, teammate who is now an official, who becomes their expert witness. Like I stated earlier, we have a few coaches around these parts who are former officials. And keep in mind that most, but not all, can actually read. Bazinga.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This ruling (decision) can be changed before the call is reported, sometimes resulting in no call at all.

It can even be changed after the ruling (decision) is reported. "Twenty-one. No. The foul was actually on twenty-two. Sorry".

We digress. Back to the casebook play. We all agree that rulings (decisions) can be changed, but this casebook play seems to suggest that these two opposing rulings (decisions) should not be changed.

What's so special about this play that the NFHS suggests that we have to go with both rulings (decisions), one that may be incorrect, when in many other cases we can change our rulings (decisions)?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Dictionary definition of rule: to decide or declare judicially or authoritatively

This, to me, is a perfect description of this play, with the keyword being decide.
This decision results in the call, which is subsequently reported to the table.

A whistle or a signal is neither a ruling nor a call. Either may be done by accident. Not true with a ruling. In no other place in the rules does a signal obligate us to do anything. Why would it possibly do so here?

Originally Posted by just another ref

The ruling (decision) takes place in your head. It is immediately followed by a whistle and a signal to communicate this decision to others. This ruling (decision) can be changed before the call is reported, sometimes resulting in no call at all.

"My partner had granted a timeout before the foul."

Read the definition of the word rule that you posted. You focused on the wrong part of the definition.

If the official declares what they have, they have ruled, by your definition. Showing a signal is declaring what you have.

Well, that should settle that. Next topic.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the official declares what they have, they have ruled, by your definition. Showing a signal is declaring what you have.

There's no reason why, after gathering more information, one cannot change his ruling.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There's no reason why, after gathering more information, one cannot change his ruling.

Absolutely true, in many play situations, but, for some reason, in this specific situation (blarge), the NFHS, according to this caseplay, doesn't want us to do that, and to stick with two decisions, one that is probably wrong.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Absolutely true, in many play situations, but, for some reason, in this specific situation (blarge), the NFHS, according to this caseplay, doesn't want us to do that, and to stick with two decisions, one that is probably wrong.

Probably wrong? If you report a block and a charge on the same contact one will always be wrong.

And have you not read the thread? This is exactly what the Director of Sports and Officials Education for the NFHS does not want you to do.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is exactly what the Director of Sports and Officials Education for the NFHS does not want you to do.

... and the director publicizes rule interpretations through the Forum? Yeah, that will reach a wide audience, maybe several hundred, at the most?