Blarge

[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.

[Raymond]

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?

Yes

[JRutledge]

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?

Yes. End of story.

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

Yes.

The obstinate, dueling officials interpretation never entered my mind until you mentioned it.

It makes far more sense to make this a double foul by default so that the dueling, obstinate officials scenario never has a chance of happening.

And what Arem said is dead on. Until we see official language, communicated in an official capacity that this should be handled like it is in NCAA-W (and NCAA-W alone), I'm sticking with the common interpretation.