E-mail to the top

[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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

I can't find any in the current rule or case book.

Edit: thanks Bob, I searched for "calls player control" instead of "calls a player-control".

[bob jenkins]

NCAAW:

A.R. 161. A1 drives to the basket and:
1. The referee calls a player-control foul and an umpire calls a block; or
2. The referee calls a charge and an umpire calls a block.
RULING 1 and 2: When the officials signal simultaneously, they shall
get together and agree to give the call to the official who had the play
originate in his/her primary. When the officials disagree that the fouls
occurred simultaneously, they shall determine which foul occurred first.
Once a decision is reached, that foul is reported to the official scorer
and the appropriate penalty is assessed.
(Rule 4-5, 4-7, 4-15 and 4-17.1)

NCAAM:

A.R. 158. A1 drives to the basket and:
1. The referee calls a player-control foul and an umpire calls a block; or
2. The referee calls a charge and an umpire calls a block.
RULING: This is uncharacteristic of a double personal foul in which
two officials adjudicate the fouls differently against two opponents for
the same contact. In (1) and (2), the two officials disagree that the fouls
occurred simultaneously.
1: The ball shall be awarded to Team A, the team in control, at the
point of interruption with no reset of the shot clock.
(Rule 2-11.7.f, 7-3.1.d, 7-4.8 and 4-15.2.b)
2: The two officials disagree as to whether there was a charge or a
block, however, before contact occurred, the ball was released by
A1. Although there is no team control while a ball is in flight,
when the goal is successful, play shall resume at the point of
interruption by awarding the ball to Team B, the team not credited
with the score, at the end line with the privilege to run the end
line. When the try is not successful, play shall resume at the point
of interruption with the use of the alternating-possession arrow and
a reset of the shot clock.
(Rule 7-4.9)

[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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No she didn't. Stop that crap already.

Peace

What are you talking about?

[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.