Final piece of the puzzle

[Adam]

Well, as long as everyone agrees the case play applies only to two obstinate officials who can't work and play well with each other.

IMO, this is worded almost exactly how the NCAA words it, and exactly opposite of how NCAAW words it, so it seems clear to me what is wanted by the NFHS folks who originally wrote it.

[just another ref]

So now all that's left is: "Yeah, but that's what they meant to say."

I cannot speak for Ms. Wynn or Mr. Alexander, but I don't know, or care, what the intent was of the case play writer. It is fundamentally contrary to the rule itself. Block and charge for the same contact. Can't happen. It's impossible. Well, yeah, but the officials saw it that way, so we must penalize both fouls, even though we know one of them is wrong. And even if you think that concept is sound, why must the determining factor be an incorrect mechanic by the officials, something which does even remotely apply to any other situation. And even if you think that is a good idea, why, oh why in the name of Mr. Naismith and everything holy, wouldn't they have put something to that effect in the play???

"If the two officials give opposing preliminary signals, both fouls must be reported."

This is the equivalent of coasting to a complete stop at a stop sign but the cop gives you a ticket because he didn't see your brake lights.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So now all that's left is: "Yeah, but that's what they meant to say."

I cannot speak for Ms. Wynn or Mr. Alexander, but I don't know, or care, what the intent was of the case play writer. It is fundamentally contrary to the rule itself. Block and charge for the same contact. Can't happen. It's impossible. Well, yeah, but the officials saw it that way, so we must penalize both fouls, even though we know one of them is wrong. And even if you think that concept is sound, why must the determining factor be an incorrect mechanic by the officials, something which does even remotely apply to any other situation. And even if you think that is a good idea, why, oh why in the name of Mr. Naismith and everything holy, wouldn't they have put something to that effect in the play???

"If the two officials give opposing preliminary signals, both fouls must be reported."

This is the equivalent of coasting to a complete stop at a stop sign but the cop gives you a ticket because he didn't see your brake lights.

The reason that there are 2 fouls, imho, isn't because of an improper mechanic. It's because two officials judged the same action differently.

They're also saying that changing your mind is ok, but not at the influence of another official's signal communication.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The reason that there are 2 fouls, imho, isn't because of an improper mechanic. It's because two officials judged the same action differently.

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. Two officials judge the same act differently all the time. But nobody reports both fouls unless they improperly give conflicting preliminary signals.

They're also saying that changing your mind is ok, but not at the influence of another official's signal communication.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong. What the masses are saying is that it's not ok to change your mind if these opposite signals were given.