Blarge

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't understand the problem with picking one of the fouls and going with it.

....

Because every one of my supervisors expects us to go with a blarge.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Did you ever ask her what the casebook play was supposed to mean?

No, he never did directly ask when the case play should apply.

[Rich]

Of course not.

Why risk that she''ll eventually realize that a NFHS rule/case is actually different than in NCAAW ball? He has the answer he wanted all along, even if it likely is out-of-context.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Depends on how you interpret the case. Show me the part where it mentions signals at all. And then show the part that requires both fouls be reported, no matter what happened.

Ad nauseum

Everyone who matters at the national level, and every state level but one, interprets the case play in the only way that makes sense. "Call" = "signal"

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

"Hard sell" to who? The coaches? The players? The fans? My response to all three... who cares? What matters is getting the call right, and it seems to me that the right thing to do is find out what happened, instead of settling for a double foul, because you can't have both a charge and a block on this play.

If you want to know what to tell coaches, here you go... "coach, I was in the best position for that call, and that is how I saw it." Is he going to like it? Maybe not, but that's hardly the first or last call he's going to disagree with. So why change the way it should be done to accommodate him this time?

This all sounds good and I actually agree with JAR's position in theory. I think it would be best to get together and go with one call.

But the powers that be for the HS games I call have ALL made it very clear that a blarge occurs when two officials give preliminary signals and that it is to be enforced and administered according to the 4 scenarios laid out in the case book.

I have had one in my career that occurred 2 seasons ago. I'm the C on a play in secondary transition. The play happened on the other side of the paint right in the L's lap. I waited, waited and then put air on my whistle for what IMO was an easy block call. I came hard to sell it since I was coming late and a little out of my primary. As I go to report and kids start lining up I see the L, a soft spoken guy who lacks presence and is consistently late with whistles, with his first pointed the other direction. My first inclination was to ignore him and proceed to the table. But then I thought better of it, knowing that everything is on tape. I go to him, talk it through, and report both to the table. All the while, kids are lined up ready to shoot FTs.

I tell both coaches, and the coach who is getting screwed goes "so you're gonna take my kid off the line?" Yes, coach by rule that's what we have to do. I saw the same coach later and we talked about it. He said he knew we did the right thing by rule and that even though he could tell I felt bad about it we did the right thing. He also sent me the tape that confirmed that it was an obvious block even though I didnt wait as long as I thought I did.

I think the current NFHS rule sucks but again, its been made very clear here that it is to be enforced as HokiePaul noted in his post.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Ad nauseum

Everyone who matters at the national level, and every state level but one, interprets the case play in the only way that makes sense. "Call" = "signal"

Actually, it now says "rules" rather than "calls."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Did you ever ask her what the casebook play was supposed to mean?

She said if neither official will give up his call, then report both fouls. The case play tells us what to do then, but as I read it, that's all it tells us. Apparently her view is the same, along with my current association rules interpreter, and the state supervisor of officials.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, it now says "rules" rather than "calls."

Semantics, IMO. It was an editorial change that, without an accompanying definition, means nothing. It could be taken either way, and with just as much justification for either.

Originally Posted by just another ref

She said if neither official will give up his call, then report both fouls. The case play tells us what to do then, but as I read it, that's all it tells us. Apparently her view is the same, along with my current association rules interpreter, and the state supervisor of officials.

So basically, if both officials are obstinant? She's applying the NCAAW rule even though the rule is written identically to the NCAAM rule, which is interpreted as a requirement to report both fouls.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Adam

Semantics, IMO. It was an editorial change that, without an accompanying definition, means nothing. It could be taken either way, and with just as much justification for either.



So basically, if both officials are obstinant? She's applying the NCAAW rule even though the rule is written identically to the NCAAM rule, which is interpreted as a requirement to report both fouls.

Throw in the NBA...which would rule this a double foul (absent the play ruling involving the RA or LDB).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Semantics, IMO. It was an editorial change that, without an accompanying definition, means nothing. It could be taken either way, and with just as much justification for either.

So if it can be taken either way, why is my way so unthinkable? I get that one must follow local tradition and instruction.

[APG]

The way I look at it...

Every code has this scenario in its case book....understandable.

NFHS, NCAA-M, and the NBA all have case book plays that are similar in wording and all come to the same conclusion (this is with no regard to the RA and/or the LDB in the NBA). Signal, call, rule...it's understood this is to be adjudicated as a double foul.

NCAA-W is the only code that differs. And they've made it absolutely clear. The two officials are to come together and decide whose primary it came from and to go with that ruling. It seems to me that if NFHS, whose wording is similar to the other codes, wanted to gives officials the option of handling this like JAR suggests, they would have made it a bit more clear. But there is no reference to even the officials getting together to decide what call to go with.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

It seems to me that if NFHS, whose wording is similar to the other codes, wanted to gives officials the option of handling this like JAR suggests, they would have made it a bit more clear. But there is no reference to even the officials getting together to decide what call to go with.

And it seems to me that if the NFHS wanted to take away the option of handling it like I suggest, they could easily make that a bit more clear:

"If conflicting preliminary signals are given, then and only then both fouls must be reported."


But there is no reference to signals, good bad or otherwise, requiring anything be done afterward, in this or any other case. And there is also nothing saying that officials may not confer, in this or any other case, before making the final ruling.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And it seems to me that if the NFHS wanted to take away the option of handling it like I suggest, they could easily make that a bit more clear:

"If conflicting preliminary signals are given, then and only then both fouls must be reported."


But there is no reference to signals, good bad or otherwise, requiring anything be done afterward, in this or any other case. And there is also nothing saying that officials may not confer, in this or any other case, before making the final ruling.

Still waiting for what the case play applies to. It makes no mention of obstinate officials, so that canard won't work here.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And it seems to me that if the NFHS wanted to take away the option of handling it like I suggest, they could easily make that a bit more clear:

"If conflicting preliminary signals are given, then and only then both fouls must be reported."


But there is no reference to signals, good bad or otherwise, requiring anything be done afterward, in this or any other case. And there is also nothing saying that officials may not confer, in this or any other case, before making the final ruling.

They could...but perhaps they don't cause 98 percent of officials know what is meant by the case book play...so the clarification isn't needed in their minds and they are better off spending their energies on deciding whether we are to become the sock police.

If the NFHS wanted to go the route of NCAA-W, then I think they'd make their case book play more closely match that from the NCAA-W's case book. The case book play mandates the officials to get together and decide which call to go with. As it is, it doesn't even come close to matching it. Not. Even. Close. If NFHS wants to go with what you're suggesting, they would have to go with a major editorial change (that would amount to a rule change).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Still waiting for what the case play applies to. It makes no mention of obstinate officials, so that canard won't work here.

I am waiting too.

Peace