E-mail to the top

[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?

[Raymond]

Can someone post the language from the NCAA-Women's rule/case play? I know the gist of the rule, primary takes the call. But I'm wondering what the "trigger" for the rule/case play is in their rule books.

IOW, what determines that 2 officials "ruled" or "called" conflicting fouls in the NCAA-Women's play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Can someone post the language from the NCAA-Women's rule/case play? I know the gist of the rule, primary takes the call. But I'm wondering what the "trigger" for the rule/case play is in their rule books.

IOW, what determines that 2 officials "ruled" or "called" conflicting fouls in the NCAA-Women's play?

This reminds me: what's the wording in NCAAM?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

My follow up question would be simple at this point, since you have her attention.

Similar to bob's.

"To what situation does this case play refer?"

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

My follow up question would be simple at this point, since you have her attention.

Similar to bob's.

"To what situation does this case play refer?"

Somebody else can ask her. This might give credibility to the whole thing, proving that more than one person is interested.

I'm inclined to quit while I'm ahead.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Somebody else can ask her. This might give credibility to the whole thing, proving that more than one person is interested.

I'm inclined to quit while I'm ahead.

Only one person thinks you're ahead. That would be you.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Only one person thinks you're ahead. That would be you.

The editor of the books says the exact same thing I say. You, yourself said her opinion carries weight. That's definitely ahead of where I was beforehand.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The editor of the books says the exact same thing I say. You, yourself said her opinion carries weight. That's definitely ahead of where I was beforehand.

No she didn't. Stop that crap already.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The editor of the books says the exact same thing I say. You, yourself said her opinion carries weight. That's definitely ahead of where I was beforehand.

It does. Just not when it's relayed here second-hand.

Have her publish her words in the casebook, in the rulebook, or in the interpretations.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The editor of the books says the exact same thing I say. You, yourself said her opinion carries weight. That's definitely ahead of where I was beforehand.

The current editor of a book that includes a case play written years before her tenure began. Honestly, it appears to me she didn't put much thought into reading and understanding the case play and simply responded by taking her experience (as Nevadaref indicated) and applying it to NFHS rules.

Frankly, I maintain there's no alternative way to interpret the case play that makes any sense. If they want to change it, like Rich, I think it would be fine. If they want to issue a clarification saying it's only applicable when two officials are just dicks and won't give any ground, then I'll take that to my local association and see how we want to handle it.

In the mean time....