E-mail to the top

[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 BadNewsRef

Hmmm, so in the ruleset that handles the situation the same way jar does, signaling is considered the deciding factor as to what the officials "ruled/called". So there is precedent for "officials' signals" to be the trigger of whether or not a blarge is in effect.

True, good point. But this case says "simultaneous signals", rather than "conflicting signals" or "opposite signals." A fist in the air is also a signal. According to this wording, even if both officials have just a fist they should still get together.

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No she didn't. Stop that crap already.

Peace

What are you talking about?

[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....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What are you talking about?

She did not reference the current case play or the most important aspect of why this was even a debate. So to act like she answered the question is rather funny. Once again, you are the only one that seems to be sticking to this crap about what constitutes a call or what does not constitute a call. When I blow my whistle I am not telling anyone what I have actually called and certainly not telling them on a block-charge call. You do not let your decision known until you make a signal and you know that. If that was not the case, we would blow our whistle and then go to the table and then we tell everyone what we are calling whether it is a block, charge, two shots or we are putting the ball out of bounds. I guess we just go report without conferring with our partners. Sorry, but that is very silly and I know you are smarter than that.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

I agree.

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....

I agree with this for the most part, also. We would be much better off if this case play did not exist at all. But, in my opinion, the option to discuss alternatives will always be preferable over we must report two things, even when one, by definition, is impossible.

[just another ref]

Rut, can you read at all?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

She did not reference the current case play....

The case number was in the subject line of the original e-mail.

....or the most important aspect of why this was even a debate.

From the second e-mail:

The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation. Please advise.


Her: It does not change the equation. They still should come together and talk to make a final decision. If the decision is to go one way over another then that person goes to the table to report. If no one wants to give in, then they go to the table to report both fouls.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Rut, can you read at all?



The case number was in the subject line of the original e-mail.





From the second e-mail:

The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation. Please advise.


Her: It does not change the equation. They still should come together and talk to make a final decision. If the decision is to go one way over another then that person goes to the table to report. If no one wants to give in, then they go to the table to report both fouls.

She either did not read the play or she did not understand why you asked the question. And you did her no favors by leaving out the most important issue in this debate in your original email. And you are the only one here that things "calls" does not indicate a signal of some kind. As stated, she fell back on her experience at another level and was not aware of what it either said in the casebook by her comments or she would have made it very clear what should be done.

You can say whatever you like about me, but you are the only one arguing this point of view. Do not get mad at me because you are trying to be argumentative about how this is clearly understood. You are the only person that read this that I have ever come in contact with that is confused about what this case play does. I have even shown people after the fact and no one goes to the place you do about this play. I wonder why?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

She either did not read the play or she did not understand why you asked the question.

This is one hell of an assumption.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is one hell of an assumption.

It is an assumption because of how she answered your question. She should have addressed the fact that the books she is responsible for and to for interpretations totally contradicts what she told you in her response. And if she was certain about her position, why is she asking you to contact your local association? You asked God, not Moses. If you asked the publishing body what we should do and in their literature says something, she cannot run from that stance just to give an opinion unless she wants further confusion. She has to address why there would be confusion in the first place.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is an assumption because of how she answered your question. She should have addressed the fact that the books she is responsible for and to for interpretations totally contradicts what she told you in her response. And if she was certain about her position, why is she asking you to contact your local association? You asked God, not Moses. If you asked the publishing body what we should do and in their literature says something, she cannot run from that stance just to give an opinion unless she wants further confusion. She has to address why there would be confusion in the first place.

Peace

Exactly. I'm 100% willing to assume that she merely applied the NCAAW philosophy without making any effort to understand the history of the case play and how it came about.