Final piece of the puzzle

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I would stop at her interpretation. There can only be one interpretation, not 50 different ones nor states that do not like hers so they do something else.

MTD, Sr.

I disagree with you on some level. If there is a loophole or something not specifically stated, I have no problem with a state saying, "This is what we will do in (fill in the blank)."

But this situation is clearly stated in the casebook. This has a very specific application. There is no wiggle room here. I think JAR just was being difficult trying to even argue this point and Ms. Wynn did not review her organization's information or literature.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But this situation is clearly stated in the casebook. This has a very specific application.

Clearly stated? You think that this play clearly states that signals, even though not mentioned at all, obligate us to report a block and a charge on the same play, which is by definition, impossible. Well now there are three of us on record as saying this is not clear at all.

I was told to take my argument to a higher authority. I did so, with great success if I must say so myself.


I turn the challenge around now. One of you find out who wrote this case play and get an explanation from that person to say whether the common
(mis)perception was indeed its original intended purpose. Even if it was I now have more than enough backing for my position to continue on the current path.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I turn the challenge around now. One of you find out who wrote this case play and get an explanation from that person to say whether the common
(mis)perception was indeed its original intended purpose. Even if it was I now have more than enough backing for my position to continue on the current path.

It's most likely that either Howard Mayo wrote the Case Play himself or knows who did.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's most likely that either Howard Mayo wrote the Case Play himself or knows who did.

Excellent. Go for it.

[Nevadaref]

I can tell you that it predates the NCAAW having their own rules book and interpretations separate from that of NCAAM. Hence, it is likely that the interpretation was written to match the one used by NCAAM or perhaps the NFHS one came first and NCAAM copied it. Either way, if we understand what the instruction is for how the NCAAM handle the situation, then we likely have the intended interpretation for the NFHS ruling.

[Adam]

My final say at this point.
1. The case is clear, IMO. It's identical to the NCAAM ruling, and it's clear to everyone what the requirement is at that level.
2. I can't imagine they wrote a case play to apply to two officials who are just simply too stubborn when every other double whistle (travel/foul) still requires them to come together. If so, it could just as easily apply to the NCAAW in situations where PCA isn't so clear.
3. The current editor of the NFHS rules says otherwise, but the case remains in the book.
4. My state and leadership wants it done the way that everyone I know has been doing it as long as I remember.
5. LA has directed otherwise.

I'll follow the wording of the case play as I understand it util such a time as it changes or my state directs otherwise.

6. I've had exactly one of these, so I doubt it's really going to be an issue.

[Raymond]

It has already been proven that NCAA Women consider signals to equal calling/ruling. I don't think they JUST pulled that out of their butts.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's most likely that either Howard Mayo wrote the Case Play himself or knows who did.

I'm pretty certain that case predates Howard's time on rules committee. But I could easily find out what he knows about it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm pretty certain that case predates Howard's time on rules committee. But I could easily find out what he knows about it.

Please do. It is my opinion that he or one of his colleagues could provide an accurate account of the intent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Clearly stated? You think that this play clearly states that signals, even though not mentioned at all, obligate us to report a block and a charge on the same play, which is by definition, impossible. Well now there are three of us on record as saying this is not clear at all.

Yes it is clearly stated. But you on the other hand went looking for nits in the crap to justify some position that no one but you are trying to make. I have been around hundreds of officials and not one has ever made the claim you have. Better yet, no one has ever claimed they did not understand the caseplay. So yes, that is rather clear to me when others who I have never tried to influence know the rule the same way.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I was told to take my argument to a higher authority. I did so, with great success if I must say so myself.

You go with that.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I turn the challenge around now. One of you find out who wrote this case play and get an explanation from that person to say whether the common (mis)perception was indeed its original intended purpose. Even if it was I now have more than enough backing for my position to continue on the current path.

JAR, at this point I do not care. The literature is clear, I am not having issues with what is written. No one around me has issues with what is written. My state has not stated to do anything different than already stated. Right now in my world, someone that is on the internet wants us to take his word for something that does not influence anything anyone around me or who I work for thinks. I am not going to go looking for an answer based on those facts or information. Sorry.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The literature is clear, I am not having issues with what is written.

If the literature was truly clear then we would not be having this discussion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

If the literature was truly clear then we would not be having this discussion.

It's clear to me and anybody with whom I've ever officiated. I'm confident that streak will continue.

[MechanicGuy]

The literature may be clear, but allowing for (or even requiring) two opposite fouls/calls for the same contact is patently absurd.

Disagreements, even opposing signals, happen often during a game, but this is really the only situation where the officials are unable to come together and decide the proper call.

If a ball is tipped out of bounds on the sideline in transition and the L points one way while the T points the other, does that automatically make it a jump ball or should the two come together and see who had the best look/is most confident in their call?

I suppose the most important lesson to learn from all of this is to hold your preliminary signal, especially is the contact occurs out of your PCA....or closer to another officials' PCA.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

The literature may be clear, but allowing for (or even requiring) two opposite fouls/calls for the same contact is patently absurd.

yep

Disagreements, even opposing signals, happen often during a game, but this is really the only situation where the officials are unable to come together and decide the proper call.

The NFHS rules editor says the officials not only can but should come together and decide.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

If the literature was truly clear then we would not be having this discussion.

If it was truly unclear, this discussion would be had in multiple places. It has never been had by many but in this place, initiated by one person. That should tell you something.

Peace