Question?

w_sohl

Mwanr1 wrote
So getting back to your previous post, why is it OK for the NCAA women officials to get together and discuss play and NOT NFHS?

I agree with not giving the preliminary signal too quickly!!!

Because the NFHS and Men's rule books do not allow for discussion. They state that both fouls MUST be reported as a double foul end of story. There is no discussion from us as officials. Either you do it the right way for the code you are working or you don't.

And there are a lot of coaches that know this is the case, trust me.

Adam

just another ref wrote
1. I think either way is okay by rule, depending on the details of the situation.

2. Skeptical about this one.

3. I don't see that as an issue here. I really don't consider my idea here to be
anything shady.

1. There is no question about the rule, it cannot be done "either way" in NFHS ball. The case book is an extension of the rule book, and it is extremely clear.
2. That's your right.
3. If I know the rule and purposefully ignore it because a) I don't like it, b) it's easier my way, and c) no one will know; that's an integrity issue.

Is it as big a deal as the NY State Attorney General paying for hookers while he's prosecuting a prostitution ring; and continuing to do so after he gets elected Governor? No.

It's probably more like taking a coffee from the break room and not putting your $.50 in the honor bucket.

just another ref

The whole problem here is whether the terms "call" and "signal" are meant to be interchangeable in this case.

A1 drives on B1, who is planted and waiting. I am positive that A1 is going to run him over, but at the last possible split second he crosses over and changes direction. B1 is fooled, just as I was, and attempts to recover but sticks his chest out and turns an almost certain PC foul into an obvious blocking foul. I see all this in my mind as I blow the whistle, but my hand didn't get the memo, and it grabs the back of my head. oops As I report the blocking foul, coach B says, "Hey, you signaled PC!" "Yep, I anticipated. My bad."

Same situation as above, but my partner also had the call and made the correct signal from the start.

Is a signal, which I knew was wrong by the time I made it, binding in either of the above cases? I don't see how it can be.

Adam

just another ref wrote
The whole problem here is whether the terms "call" and "signal" are meant to be interchangeable in this case.

It doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone else.

Everyone else is on the same page when it comes to what the case book means when it says "calls." Do you really think there'd be a case play for a time when two officials separately report different fouls without conferring with one another? Have you ever seen that happen? I haven't even heard of it happening.

This case play is obvious unless you don't want it to be.

Jurassic Referee

Snaqwells wrote
It doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone else.

Gee, ya think, Mr. Obvious?

Raymond

just another ref wrote
The whole problem here is whether the terms "call" and "signal" are meant to be interchangeable in this case.

A1 drives on B1, who is planted and waiting. I am positive that A1 is going to run him over, but at the last possible split second he crosses over and changes direction. B1 is fooled, just as I was, and attempts to recover but sticks his chest out and turns an almost certain PC foul into an obvious blocking foul. I see all this in my mind as I blow the whistle, but my hand didn't get the memo, and it grabs the back of my head. oops As I report the blocking foul, coach B says, "Hey, you signaled PC!" "Yep, I anticipated. My bad."

Same situation as above, but my partner also had the call and made the correct signal from the start.

Is a signal, which I knew was wrong by the time I made it, binding in either of the above cases? I don't see how it can be.

Integrity.

socalreff

Mwanr1 wrote
I don't want to sound like an a55 and question you, but where are you getting this information from? And why is it different in NCAA Men?

A.R. 154. (Men) A1 drives to the basket and:
(1) The referee calls a player-control foul and an umpire calls a block;
or
(2) The referee calls a charge and an umpire calls a block.
RULING: This is uncharacteristic of a double personal foul where
one official adjudicates the obviously committed fouls against two opponents.
In (1) and (2), the two officials disagree that the fouls occurred
simultaneously. In (1), the ball shall be awarded to Team A, the team in
control, at the point of interruption with no reset of the shot clock. In
(2), the two officials disagree as to whether there was a charge or a block,
however, the ball was released by A1. Although there is no team control
while a ball is in flight, when the goal is successful, play shall resume
at the point of interruption by awarding the ball to Team B, the team
not credited with the score, at the endline with the privilege to run the
endline. When the try is not successful, play shall resume at the point of
interruption with the use of the alternating possession arrow and a reset
of the shot clock.
(Rule 7-5.11)

bob jenkins

Mwanr1 wrote
There should be some sort of universal ruling or consistency to it.

Yep -- and which should it be? And should it be 30-second, 35-second or no shot clock? POI on all (non-flagrant, non-intentional) Ts, or all excpet excess TOs or none? Allow pre-game dunks or not? 28' coaching box, 14' coaching box, 6' coaching box or no box?

We all probably have opinions on what the rules "should be", but each sport has its own committee and, afaik, none of us is on any of them.

« Previous Page