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

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.

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

Excellent. Go for it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You go with that. :rolleyes:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I didn't initiate the argument. I refused to go along with a widely held idea which makes no sense. And now I have support for my position from people who matter. Find somebody who matters to publicly support your position and then we can discuss it further.

Again, no one in my entire career has even questioned this situation on any level. So it must make sense to a lot of people. NO ONE!!!! I repeat NO ONE but you made this argument. Even those that disagreed with the interpretation never suggested what you did. NO ONE!!!!

And I do not need validation because if anything the people that matter have wondered why officials did not own up to their signal and give a double foul. NO ONE but you has ever tried to apply this any other way. And since you are not anyone in my immediate world, I am not going by what you say or what your email states. I cannot go with "some guy on the official's site thinks we should do something contrary than the casebook." I do not know about you, but I like working. ;)

Peace

"People who matter" to you. Let's be clear.

The editor of the NFHS books doesn't matter to you?

And what people would that be? I have quotes from my people. Let's see some from your people.

Not to me. And certainly not to me when she ignores what is in their literature. If she changes it, then then I will worry about what she has to say.

Peace

The Administrator of basketball in my state. The Head Clinician and Rules Interpreter of our state. If they come out and say different, then I will do what they request. Until that time, it is just noise in the background.

Oh, I am not asking for quotes from anyone. No one around here is questioning the casebook that is already written. And once again, you do not live in our state and we are not having this debate ANYWHERE!!!!

Peace

Jeff answered this pretty well:

and:

The NFHS editor's opinion only matters of you ask the right question. I don't believe they answered the question you think you asked.

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.

yep

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

So, if two conflicting signals means that you must report both, then what happens when one signals a travel and one signals a foul? Are we reporting the foul?

That's a separate case play. It says the officials must decide which happened first.

I understand that.

So what was the question?

The fundamental principle is that neither official is permitted to overrule another official. Same contact, two judgement, apply both rulings. That is really the only fair result. Any discussion had is going to one official's opinion overriding the other no matter how you phrase the resolution.

Apples and oranges.....that is a matter of who saw what and when, not two opinions of who was at fault for a single contact.
As I've said many times before, that is good on paper, but has holes in it in practice. There are several locations that are on the boundary of both officials primaries and the players may be moving directly along that boundary. Now what?


Two events, one happened first. Figure out which. Neither official is wrong, just that the first action caused the ball to become dead making the 2nd action moot by rule.

We've been instructed on a blarge to get together and go with one call. If one call can't be agreed upon, then and only then do you report both.

Unless I'm missing something, there is a significant flaw in this answer.

If both officials only had a fist up, they may still have had different judgments on the same play, but in this case it is perfectly acceptable when one overrides the other?

No flaw except in your mind. With only the fists up, no one is overruling the other. One is, without knowing what the other has, choosing to yield.

And what would make you change your mind on such a play? Let's keep this in a HS game under NFHS rules so there is no restricted area to consider.

If I'm your partner, what exactly are you going to say to me to change my mind after I made a blocking call and you signaled a charging foul?

I once watched a game in which only one official signaled and the other just put up a fist. However, the official who didn't signal completely disagreed with his partner's call and after a conversion a double-foul was reported.

I don't know. I've never been in this situation. I've had the same partner for 10 years now, and we both know on a double whistle, it belongs to the lead. We have pregamed this.

Maybe I would come to you and say, remember our pregame? I am the lead and I am taking this.

I adhere to the position all of my college supervisors and my state HS clinician have made clear every year. So I'm good.

Which means you initiate the argument. It's only debated when you bring up your disagreement with the "widely held idea".

And that's what the case play says to do. The officials made two different rulings and reported both fouls.

Who did or didn't make a preliminary block/charge signal has nothing to do with it.

You're saying it's okay to yield to your partner if you don't know what his call is, but if you know his call is different you have to report both?

I'm not buying this at all.

So now we're arguing about what an argument is. Okay, I give you this one. If it's suffer in silence or initiate an argument, I'll initiate one every time. I encourage others to do the same.

Yes it does. Why do you think you get to speak for all officials and what they are interpreting or thinking?

What does it matter if YOU buy it? Thousands of other officials "buy it".

But then you'll turn around and say you aren't arguing about blarges. :rolleyes:

I'm not speaking for anybody. I'm voicing an opinion. Apparently the official in Nevadaref's play had the same opinion.

"Who did or didn't make a preliminary block/charge signal has nothing to do with it."

Well, I'm telling that it does matter in every signal game I've ever worked unless I'm working a summer league or AAU tournament that has NCAA-Women's rules.

Even when I work games with officials who normall work NCAA-Women's basketball, they know that unless we are working NCAA-W's rules, that preliminary signals determine whether or not we have to report a blarge.

Of course, NCAA-Women's officials already know that preliminary signals equal ruling/calling, because it explicitly says so in their rule set.

BTW, there was a play in one of the State Finals where one official gave a block and the other signaled a charge. Well the State Rules Interpreter pointed out they did not go with a double foul when I had a conversation with him about that weekend. So it appears that he was not happy with the fact they ignored what the other official's signal was given.

Peace

What state was this? Sounds like a debate to me.

Really, do you always have to be so disingenuous?

You may think I'm doing it again, but you're going to have to explain what you mean by that.

Yes you are being disingenuous. Actually that is the nice way to put it.

Peace