Blarge

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

.... it is no longer a PC foul.

Never thought of this before, but it's all the more reason to do this the way the NFHS editor and I have said all along. If signals are the key, and now it's not a PC after all, the signals are meaningless, which means it's now a compromise. So why is this any different than going with one call?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Never thought of this before, but it's all the more reason to do this the way the NFHS editor and I have said all along. If signals are the key, and now it's not a PC after all, the signals are meaningless, which means it's now a compromise. So why is this any different than going with one call?

Your question is no more different now than it was 10 years ago.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Your question is no more different now than it was 10 years ago.

The difference is the NFHS editor says the exact same thing I've always said. Young officials hearing all this for the first time might want to know that, even if you don't.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The difference is the NFHS editor says the exact same thing I've always said. Young officials hearing all this for the first time might want to know that, even if you don't.

You asked the editor a loaded question and she only replied to you. If that was some sort of "official" stance by the NFHS we would have seen it by now.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You asked the editor a loaded question and she only replied to you. If that was some sort of "official" stance by the NFHS we would have seen it by now.

The "loaded" question you speak of, for those who may not know, was this.

The subject line of the e-mail was Case book 4.19.8c. The question was: Some associates and I have discussed this case which involves two officials making conflicting calls on a block charge play at great length and still have disagreement about when both fouls must be reported and when one may defer to the other.

Her answer: If there are double whistles, the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen and which may have come first. In fact when there are two whistles the officials should immediately hold the signal for the infraction and have the discussion. If one defers to the other then the signal is given and the official moves to the table to report. If they cannot come to an agreement, then they rule a double foul and both players will report (it does not matter who reports first). Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The "loaded" question you speak of, for those who may not know, was this.

The subject line of the e-mail was Case book 4.19.8c. The question was: Some associates and I have discussed this case which involves two officials making conflicting calls on a block charge play at great length and still have disagreement about when both fouls must be reported and when one may defer to the other.

Her answer: If there are double whistles, the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen and which may have come first. In fact when there are two whistles the officials should immediately hold the signal for the infraction and have the discussion. If one defers to the other then the signal is given and the official moves to the table to report. If they cannot come to an agreement, then they rule a double foul and both players will report (it does not matter who reports first). Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.

Her answer says *nothing* about when one signals a block and one signals a PC -- it is clearly talking about 2 officials posting.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Her answer says *nothing* about when one signals a block and one signals a PC

Neither does the case play, but this was the follow up question:

The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation

Her answer: It does not change the equation. They still should come together and talk to make a final decision. If the decision is to go one way over another then that person goes to the table to report. If no one wants to give in, then they go to the table to report both fouls.

Ultimately, you should talk with your state office to determine if this is the direction they want the officials to go.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The "loaded" question you speak of, for those who may not know, was this.

The subject line of the e-mail was Case book 4.19.8c. The question was: Some associates and I have discussed this case which involves two officials making conflicting calls on a block charge play at great length and still have disagreement about when both fouls must be reported and when one may defer to the other.

Her answer: If there are double whistles, the two officials should get together and discuss what was seen and which may have come first. In fact when there are two whistles the officials should immediately hold the signal for the infraction and have the discussion. If one defers to the other then the signal is given and the official moves to the table to report. If they cannot come to an agreement, then they rule a double foul and both players will report (it does not matter who reports first). Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.

You are drawing a conclusion from that answer that just isn't there. In fact, her response actually counters your point. Her response indicated that there were two whistles ONLY, no signals. That is the key. That implies that once signals are given, the decisions have been made and it is too late to have the discussion.