Blarge

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

My point is the change in wording is meaningless.

[just another ref]

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.

It also makes no mention of signals or reporting both fouls being mandatory under any circumstances.

If two officials call/rule/signal opposite things, which are by definition impossible, and neither one backs off, if this is not obstinate, what is?

The case play tells us what to do in the unlikely event this happens. I see the case play as useless.

And as I've pointed out countless times, why is this case play, which has been stretched well beyond its breaking point in my opinion, so important when the multiple foul case, which has zero grey areas, totally meaningless?

The answer: Because that's the way everybody else does it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

My point is the change in wording is meaningless.

I don't disagree with that.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

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).

How so? They could simply delete the case play altogether, which already is in direct conflict with the rule. If the case play were gone, how would you proceed then?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Because neither way leads to your way.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

How so? They could simply delete the case play altogether, which already is in direct conflict with the rule. If the case play were gone, how would you proceed then?

Removing the case play may help you WIN this discussion but it will take much more than that to get all officials on the same page when this play occurs. Down here, we are heavily influenced by Women's college officials. They routinely apply your reasoning and do not catch much grief from the coaches for it, either.

I am waiting for one of them to apply it your way during a hotly contested state tournament game???? I am curious on as to how GHSA would handle this???

[Welpe]

And the Great Blarge Debate of 2015 has begun.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

And the Great Blarge Debate of 2015 has begun.

Really not much of a debate. It always seems that everyone involved is certain of his own position.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Really not much of a debate. It always seems that everyone involved in certain of his own position.

I don't have a position. I have been expressly told how to handle the situation by multiple supervisors.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't have a position. I have been expressly told how to handle the situation by multiple supervisors.

Exactly. And in my case, the people I work for do not like Women's College basketball, so they could give a damn what they do or want. This is HS and college that I work and the rules are clear as to what to do.

Peace

Can we stop please? This is the mirror image of the last thread we had on the issue and absent additional input from Theresa (did JAR ever email her and ask her what the case play was supposed to mean?) we will continue to treat this play according to our preconceived notions.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Can we stop please? This is the mirror image of the last thread we had on the issue and absent additional input from Theresa (did JAR ever email her and ask her what the case play was supposed to mean?) we will continue to treat this play according to our preconceived notions.

Couple of things. First of all, most of the people here said they didn't care what her opinion was, and she did say to check and see how your state wants this handled. Second, it seems to me that the case play answers the questions in the OP. Does the basket count? Who gets the throw-in? Why does it need to mean anything else? What she already said, for those who did want her opinion, is that it doesn't mean you EVER must report a double foul, whether signals were made or not. In fact, as mentioned above, she strongly discouraged doing so.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Couple of things. First of all, most of the people here said they didn't care what her opinion was, and she did say to check and see how your state wants this handled. Second, it seems to me that the case play answers the questions in the OP. Does the basket count? Who gets the throw-in? Why does it need to mean anything else? What she already said, for those who did want her opinion, is that it doesn't mean you EVER must report a double foul, whether signals were made or not. In fact, as mentioned above, she strongly discouraged doing so.

1. I am sure people here do care what her opinion but need to hear from her in an official capacity before they are willing to change. I think that is totally fair.

2. I know she said to check with my state how they want this handled and my state said they wanted it handled by the book. Thus, we are back to square one regarding what the case play actually means.

3. No matter what you think, Theresa's email to you does not constitute canon across the National Federation. I don't give a crap which way we go, but in order to shift from the traditionally held view of going double foul we are going to need clear, specific language in the rulebook or a national memo that tells us to change. Until then you are going to be the only one pining for this understanding of the case play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

3. No matter what you think, Theresa's email to you does not constitute canon across the National Federation. I don't give a crap which way we go, but in order to shift from the traditionally held view of going double foul we are going to need clear, specific language in the rulebook or a national memo that tells us to change. Until then you are going to be the only one pining for this understanding of the case play.

I think this is the whole thing. While this apparently is a very widely held view, like some other things, (3 seconds) there is no language in the case, let alone the rule that supports it.

Can anyone here say that he read this case and immediately decided, on his own, that it meant that conflicting signals obligated him to do something?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think this is the whole thing. While this apparently is a very widely held view, like some other things, (3 seconds) there is no language in the case, let alone the rule that supports it.

Can anyone here say that he read this case and immediately decided, on his own, that it meant that conflicting signals obligated him to do something?

I have read this play on my own for years to mean you have to call double foul because:

It said when one CALLS block and one CALLS charge RESULT is a double foul. I have always considered "call" to be --blow the whistle/signal. The other key word for me is "result." If that happens the end all, the RESULT, is double foul. If you report only one foul that is not a "double foul." You have not reached the result the play calls for.
Now, I believe the change in wording from CALLS to RULES could be significant. I take note when words change. It could be said that word "rules" involves more of a thought process. It is more than just the original call. Confer...think then RULE. However, as everyone points out..the long held interpretation is report double foul...etc. If you are going to change a long standing view...tell somebody...make it public. Dont change a word and think your done. Leave no doubt about it.