Final piece of the puzzle

[just another ref]

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.

[Raymond]

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

[asdf]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by asdf

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The answer is "no" for Louisiana and according to the NFHS editor. That's not the answer in Virginia.

[Nevadaref]

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

I agree.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I agree.

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

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.

[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.

[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.