Final piece of the puzzle

[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.