Blarge

[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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[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?

[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.