Final piece of the puzzle
 

In her answer about the blarge play NFHS rulebook editor Theresia Wynns ultimately stated one should check with ones own state to see how this play should be administered.

So I did.

We had a meeting tonight to discuss association business. In attendance was Keith Alexander, LHSAA Supervisor of Officials. I asked him about the play.

"According to some in our discussion group, if the two officials give conflicting preliminary signals, they must report both fouls. True?"

He answered quickly, without hesitation. He did not specifically say that he was familiar with this particular case play, but I got the impression that he was. His answer: "No, only if neither will yield to the other." And he added pointedly, "And it should never come to that."

I agreed.

So, you are handling it correctly for your state. Can't ask for anything more than that.

Why didn't you specifically tell him that the Case Book tells us that it is a double foul?

Everybody knows that the case is about a double foul. The question is whether signals are the key to the case. The answer is no.

Ms. Wynns position is the same position with regard as to who should be making rules interpretations that Mary Struckhoff took: Let the StateHSAAs make their own rulings. That position is nonsense. The Number One item of Ms. Wynns' job description is Rules Interpreter Big Kahuna. The buck stops with her.

MTD, Sr.

The answer is "no" for Louisiana. That's not the answer in Virginia.

I agree.

She did give her own interpretation first, then added to check with your own state.

:)

Is Louisiana the state which still uses some bizarre three-person mechanic?

And this is relevant in this thread how?

It speaks to the thinking and mindset of Mr. Alexander.
So please tell us about 3-person mechanics in your state. How do they differ from NFHS mechanics?

I have no idea. I do 3 man so seldom it is not high on my list of priorities.

I think the weird mechanics went away a while ago:

http://lhsaa.org/uploads/forms/pdf/B...nt----2009.pdf

Looks a lot like NFHS, except the calling official goes opposite (like IAABO, apparently).

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