E-mail to the top
 

I took the advice of the group. I sent the following e-mail to:

Theresia D. Wynns

Director of Sports and Officials Education

National Federation of State High School Associations

Subject: 4.19.8c


Madam:


Some associates and I have discussed this case which involves two officials making conflicting calls on a block charge play at great length and still have disagreement about when both fouls must be reported and when one may defer to the other. Also we are pondering the significance of the editorial change in the case this year changing "the official calls" to "the official rules."

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

If anybody thinks this question was somehow not properly structured, now would be the time to say so. A follow up is always possible.

They are probably going to tell you that you need to go to your state representative for a ruling or interpretation.That has been the modus operandi in the past of the National Federation.

Peace

Her reply:

If there are double whistles, the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen and which may have come first. In fact when there are two whistles the officials should immediately hold the signal for the infraction and have the discussion. If one defers to the other then the signal is given and the official moves to the table to report. If they cannot come to an agreement, then they rule a double foul and both players will report (it does not matter who reports first). Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.



Officials make rulings on the floor; therefore, the language should reflect that.

Interesting cuz she never directly addresses what to do when conflicting signals are given before the refs get together, but then says this:

I got this from our association.


In a the case of the double whistle as you have described.....the
mechanic would be for the officials to confer and then report the foul they
believed to have occurred first----just because two whistles were sounded
would not demand that two fouls had to be reported...

I don't think there's anybody disagreeing on what to do on double whistles.

Congrats on not asking the right question.

The question must include conflicting preliminary signals at the time the foul is whistled.

I did ask the right question. Here's what I asked and that was the answer I got.

If there is a double whistle for instance on a block/charge, and one signals block, and one signals PC. Does
the moment of the prelim signals mean we have to report both, or could the
two officials get together and decide which to go with.

I think Rich was referring to JAR's original post.

Yeah. Your association can be as wrong as it wants to be. :D

Personally, I don't care which way it's handled and I'd change on a dime if the NFHS put something out that said to handle it the NCAAW way.

The reason I didn't mention conflicting signals is because I didn't want to taint the original answer. Signals are not a part of this case play, which is the main thing I have stood by since day one. If we should/must do a certain thing because of conflicting signals, that's fine. But there is no way one can draw that conclusion by reading this case play.

Don't panic. A follow up question is in the works about conflicting signals.

That's the only real question, IMO, because blarges only get called in that situation.

Then you did not want to know the real answer.

Peace

It's so poorly constructed, given the context, you would need to start over.

"Dear Madame,
Is this case play meant to cover the situation where two officials give conflicting signals on the same block/charge play?"

Only for one. Everyone else draws the same conclusion.

You asked someone who is a female official for a ruling on a situation which has different interpretations between NCAAM and NCAAW. Which ruling do you think that she is going to respond with? Duh!

need 2 case plays?
 

JAR,

Just so I understand your position:

You think that the case play refers to two officials who remain steadfast in their calls? But, the case play does NOT apply to the situation where two officials are coming together and discussing their calls and then, one official defers to the other ( regardless of signaling)?

I'd also like to know who this person is? I see her title but does she have authority from the NFHS to issue interpretations? Is she on the rules committee?

Okay, here's the rest of it.

Me: Thanks for the quick response. 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.

Ultimately, you should talk with your state office to determine if this is the direction they want the officials to go.

I asked someone who is the editor of the NFHS books, which have absolutely nothing to do with NCAA men or women.

DUH

If she has taken Struckhoff's job, her opinion carries weight.

I'd love to see this be one of the clarifications issued at the beginning of next season.

Till something's changed or announced more publicly, it really doesn't change anything. Not going to tilt at windmills.

All these things are simply random choices by the people in charge at the time. Times change. Shrug.

It seems to me that she simply read the case and interpreted it literally, which is all that I have ever done. The question is when was anything announced publicly in the first place which stated anything else?

Good points. I hope whatever the final decision that this lady decides to make he interp public somehow. Until that happens I can't exactly operate this way while appealing to "some guy who sent an email to the NFHS editor on an online Forum" (no offense JAR).

None taken. A public statement here would be okay, but I would be very surprised if this prompted one. My impression here is that this case play is not something she has given a lot of thought.

"Here's what it says, so here is what you do. If your superiors tell you to do something else, do that."

Exactly what I've always said.

So is this a case of not reading carefully, or are you seriously blasting him because he dared ask a woman for an answer???:eek:

Either way...holy crap!

:)

It's not the gender of the individual offering the opinion, it's the gender of the participants that this person has spent significant time officiating that slants the viewpoint. So I'm blasting him for asking someone with years of background officiating women's games for this particular ruling when we all know that there is both a different mindset and interpretation coming from women's side of officiating. Mary Struckhoff was the same in this regard. She even implemented several mechanics to the NFHS book from the NCAAW and WNBA while serving in this role. If the current NFHS rules editor were a male with a background in women's officiating, I would make the same point. I could have worded the prior post differently, but this is what I was attempting to communicate. The opinion he got was exactly what is to be expected, given the source that he consulted.

Now both Struckhoff and Wynns have held this post for the NFHS, yet the fact is that neither one of them authored the NFHS Case Book play and neither one of them can state what that person had in mind when doing so.
Personally, and everyone that I've ever worked with, understands the NFHS ruling to match the NCAAM instruction = when two officials give conflicting preliminary signals both fouls are reported. There is no "let's see if one official will yield to the other."

Therefore, I'm telling JAR that he got exactly what is to be expected from someone with the training and mindset in officiating that she has.

The most accurate assessment of the situation in this thread is provided by Rich.
We have a new NFHS person in this position, so now this individual brings her personal take and philosophy to the rules. Just because this person reads a longtime case play in a certain way doesn't mean that it has always or should have always been understood in this manner. Conversely, that seems to be what JAR is contending. He has now found an administrator at the NFHS who agrees with his interpretation and is saying, "See I told you so. I've been right about this all these years." That's just not true. His way may indeed come to be the official NFHS policy very soon given who is currently tasked with handling such matters, but that doesn't mean that the previous people agreed with his thinking.

Seriously, you're complaining because this is who I asked? I asked the person whose name was at the top of the list, the person who took the place of Mary Struckoff, the only name I ever recall seeing here with any administrative rules influence. And even if this interpretation does have a slant toward the women's point of view, why is that any worse than being slanted toward the men? NFHS uses the same set of rules for both.
But you can?

And this "understanding" draws its foundation from.......?



No, but what it does appear to mean is that this is the current interpretation by one high ranking administrator in this matter, and as far as she is concerned, another interpretation, no matter how prevalent, is incorrect.


I am contending NOTHING about what any administrator, past or present, might think about this or any other play. My contention, quite simply, is the same as it always was. There is no circumstance under NFHS rules where the officials are compelled to report both fouls, and there is nothing which says they may not confer before reaching their final ruling. And in spite of countless statement by numerous others, I am not the only one who sees it this way.

Ms. Wynns actually takes it even farther:

"...the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen..."

And I see this as her most powerful statement of all:

"Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do."

period

I am still baffled that this is even a question. You could have emailed the Pope and I still would be wondering why this is an issue. The Casebook is clear. Never heard anyone ever debate the valitity of the play. And her answer did not address the specifics of what we have been discussing her and what JAR seems to want to keep fighting over.

Peace

How Will You Answer ???
 

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?".

The entire purpose of the casebook is to make things clear as to how the rules are to be applied. The rulebook is not going to cover every situation. It never was intended to. The casebook tells us how to figure out what the application should be.

And I wish that the NF would put in interpretations they intend to still apply rather than take them out of the casebook to fit in other plays. Either expand the book or do not get upset when people do not follow what they did not know was intended. But this case play has never left the casebook in years.

Peace

Buggy Whips ...
 

That's what happens when your main media method involves lots of dead trees.

It's the twenty-first century. All the case plays, and all the annual interpretations, that have ever existed, if they still apply, could be easily digitally stored, and accessed with a search engine.

But here is the key, in the email Ms. Wynn said to check with your local association for an interpretation. So even if it is in the casebook, the local state association could have come up with an interpretation to be followed. And again, this is still from a person that seems to not be aware of what everyone else is doing and is arguing a point no one has been arguing previously. And JAR did not ask the right question that he wants to argue here. At least if you are going to ask the NF what they think, argue what you have been arguing here all along.

Peace

The casebook is clear about what to do when both fouls are reported. The question is whether both fouls must be reported when conflicting signals are given. The answer was no. But if you didn't understand the question, I suppose it is no surprise that you didn't understand the answer.

Is That What This Is All About ???
 

I think that I get it. Are we debating what the word "call" means? Does it mean "(preliminary) signal", or does it mean "report"?

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

If the casebook were truly clear and covered every iteration of this issue, we would not be having this discussion.

The fact is that those operating under NFHS rule sets have to respect the opinion of the head NFHS editors and interpreters, regardless of their officiating background. They have been put in that position for a reason.

I have never understood how "state" or "local association" interpretations are ever given more weight than an NFHS ruling, but somehow they are, or can be. For by-the-book states likes mine it would be preferable for Mrs. Wynns release a definitive ruling, but that does not seem likely to happen.

For the record, for Billy and anyone else that doesn't know, the word "calls" in this case has been replaced by the word "rules". When I first saw it, I thought if anything, the change made my position ever easier to support. Others said it made no difference, and that I was still the only one in the world who saw it that way.

And now.......

Enlighten us, please. What is the right question?

If I am not mistaken, you did not ask about preliminary signals. You asked about calls as if only calls are what we are discussing here. Maybe I should go back and read what you said and not completely from memory, but I did not see you ask about an official making a signal in your email to Ms. Wynn.

Peace

2 case plays
 

Rut,

Somewhere back there, JAR has been very clear that he thinks the case play that most people refer to does NOT apply to the scenario where two officials come together to discuss conflicting signals. He thinks the case play refers to two officials that remain steadfast with their "rulings" therefore they would use the double foul process outlined in the existing case play. But, because the case play does not expressly forbid it, he thinks that it is okay for officials to discuss and come away with one ruling.

If you also consider that the case play went through a minor change in the wording "rules" verses "calls", then his slant is interesting. At least, to me.

Becoming Outdated, My Casebook, Not Me ...
 

Sorry, my hard drive has a 2011-12 casebook. I knew that this would happen someday. I, somehow, have got to get a newer rulebook, and casebook, on my hard drive. I'm not a good typist, so I'm not going to be typing out casebook plays anytime soon.

I think the question needs to be along the lines of "At what point does it become a required double foul? When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a prelimninary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

Silly NFHS Monkeys ...
 

Once again, a case of the NFHS making an "unannounced" editorial change, with no explanation. Why?" Why? Inquiring minds want to know.

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."

Can't We All Just Get Along ...
 

... When one reports to the table and the other comes along, pushes his partner out of the way, and reports a conflicting call?

Same old, same old in that regard. But it did have an * prominently displayed in this year's book????

BillyMac,

We heavily influenced with Women's officials down here that always want to adjudicate this play using the Women's method. We have always used this case play to fend them off - "if we have a blarge tonight, then let's use the high school method, report both fouls and get to the POI as quickly as we can."

But, I do think that JAR's slant is interesting.

This is what I've wondered all along.

I'm in JAR's camp. I follow the supposed interpretation of reporting both and going with a double foul (Haven't had a blarge yet, thankfully), but I don't agree with it. I like the NCAAW method much better.

Fun With Casebook Plays ...
 

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?

Dear NFHS, I Apologize, Sincerely, BillyMac ...
 

Then I apologize for calling the NFHS a bunch of silly monkeys. So it was announced, but was the change explained?

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.

Smile, You're On Candid Camera ...
 

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.

No he hasn't. The issue has long been discussed beyond this discussion or recent thread where he decided to contact Ms. Wynn. And if he wanted true clarification, then make it clear what we have discussed here and what he has actually debated. Do not leave out the most important part of the discussion. If he wants a true answer, then ask that part of the question. If he wants to get what he got with "The officials must come together and decide...." then ask the question he did. No one here to my knowledge has said simply blowing the whistle means we have to stand by our calls each. It is clear the issue is the preliminary signal and if we still go to a double foul.

Peace

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.

Rut, there were two e-mails. Apparently, you missed the second one. You were right, too. She did say to check with your state.

Rut,

For this thread, his position is clear to me. If his questions to Ms. Wynn are not the same questions that you would have asked, then formulate them and request that he send them as you formulate.

For my benefit, what would your question(s) be exactly?

Up For Discussion ...
 

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.

Bob, I did ask that. And the answer I got was the same answer that JAR got. It seems to me that it is required after the two would come together and not agree on one or the other.

An Idiot's Guide To Nit Picking ...
 

I don't like the word "mistakenly". Neither official mistakenly gave a wrong preliminary signal. That would occur if both thought that it was a charge, and one gave a block signal. They both had what they had. No mistake was made in the preliminary signal. It's not a signaling mistake.

One of the calls was a mistake.

The mistake is not what the signals were, but the fact that both made preliminary signals at all on the double whistle.

It's All In The Wording ...
 

I was referring to the way the play was described in the email ("mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals").

We all know what the mistake was. The play should have been a charge, and one official called a block. Or the play should have been a block, and one official called a charge.

The caseplay still doesn't encourage us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, did you get a good look at his feet?"), and come up with a single, unified call. I wish it did. Rather, it encourages us to get together, discuss it ("Hey BillyMac, remember 4.19.8 Situation C ?"(Yeah. That's right. That's the way we discuss things here in my little corner of Connecticut)), and come up with the double foul.

The caseplay, in my view doesn't encourage or discourage anything. The calls/rulings have already been made. This is a given. All it does is tell us how to administer the penalties. When I first saw the play I thought the whole point was that the basket could count since the foul on the offensive player is not a PC foul when it is part of a double foul.

Isn't Everyone's First Time Special ???
 

I've only been keeping my books since 1996-97, but I can certainly remember my first time with this caseplay (further back than 96-97, probably got a refresher exam question wrong), and like just another ref, I thought that the main lesson to be learned was to count the basket.

I've read this caseplay over, and over, again and still can't figure out why these two officials don't learn their lesson, they keep on making the same mistake over, and over, again, they keep on giving preliminary signals on double whistles. Why can't they both just stick their fist up in the air, get together to discuss it, and have one official come out of the discussion with one unified call, probably a correct call.

Unfortunately, sometimes one official doesn't hear the other's whistle, may also be screened out from visual contact with his partner, and feel the need to give a strong preliminary signal. That's what this caseplay is for. Maybe it's a once in a career situation, but the caseplay is clear, in my opinion, on how to handle it.

Actually, no mention is made of signals at all. There is no way to tell by reading this whether any preliminary signal was made by anyone.

My Whistle's Bigger Than Yours ...
 

True, but it's those pesky preliminary signals that can get us into this mess, and why, at least in these parts, we are strongly advised not to give preliminary signals on double whistles.

Since preliminary signals aren't mentioned in the casebook play, just exactly what does "call", or "rule", mean, especially in the case of opposing "calls", or "rules". How does one know, be it a partner, a coach, or a fan, that there are opposing "decisions". Do we have both officials going to the table to report different fouls, and only then find out that they are opposing "decisions"?

I hope that were not talking about two officials standing in the middle of the court, huddled, by themselves, arguing over whose whistle is bigger than the other's, with neither yielding to the other. That's not what we're talking about. Right? Please agree with me on that.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.6080...71088&pid=15.1

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?

Grasping At Straws ...
 

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.

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."

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.

A Little Bit Of Knowledge Can Be A Dangerous Thing ...
 

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.

Decisions, Decisions ...
 

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)?

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?

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.

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.

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

What's So Special About A Blarge ???
 

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.

No, it says nothing about "reported" either (in the case play). The question is how is 'ruled' defined, and can you alter your ruling once you make it?

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?"

We Should Charge A Fee ...
 

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

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?

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".

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)

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.

So then, how the heck do we know that one called/ruled at block and one called/ruled a charge?

Did they both go to the table at he same time and report different fouls simultaneously.

In talking to a couple of old timers over the weekend who spent time on the committee.....

The CB play was published because at our level the potential for this to occur is much higher than at the NCAA level. They have never seen anyone interpret this in any other way than being a double foul.

1. We know the fouls were reported or we wouldn't need to know how to proceed from there.

2. This is a legitimate question.

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.

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.

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

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.

What are you talking about?

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....

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

I agree.


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.