Blarge

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

Sure, one of the coaches is going to be upset, but does that matter? Are we to make changes to calls based on coaches being upset with it? If so, then we're going to be changing quite a bit.

And it seems to me that only one of the calls is correct. It can't be a charge and a block. I mean, both can happen, but not at the same time. So why would an assignor take issue with getting together, and figuring out which one to go with? And going with the primary officials call seems like the best course of action.

Why indeed. Not to mention that the conclusion cannot be logically drawn in the first place that both fouls must be reported, based on the case play or anything else. Still, check with your assignor, as this is the dominant interpretation in this case.

"Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do."

Theresia D. Wynns Editor NFHS Publications

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by just another ref

"Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do."

Theresia D. Wynns Editor NFHS Publications

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

[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.

[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.

[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 Adam

My point is the change in wording is meaningless.

I don't disagree with that.

[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.