Blarge

[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.