E-mail to the top

ronny mulkey

Rut,

Somewhere back there, JAR has been very clear that he thinks the case play that most people refer to does NOT apply to the scenario where two officials come together to discuss conflicting signals. He thinks the case play refers to two officials that remain steadfast with their "rulings" therefore they would use the double foul process outlined in the existing case play. But, because the case play does not expressly forbid it, he thinks that it is okay for officials to discuss and come away with one ruling.

If you also consider that the case play went through a minor change in the wording "rules" verses "calls", then his slant is interesting. At least, to me.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
For the record, for Billy and anyone else that doesn't know, the word "calls" in this case has been replaced by the word "rules".

Sorry, my hard drive has a 2011-12 casebook. I knew that this would happen someday. I, somehow, have got to get a newer rulebook, and casebook, on my hard drive. I'm not a good typist, so I'm not going to be typing out casebook plays anytime soon.

bob jenkins

JRutledge wrote
If I am not mistaken, you did not ask about preliminary signals. You asked about calls as if only calls are what we are discussing here. Maybe I should go back and read what you said and not completely from memory, but I did not see you ask about an official making a signal in your email to Ms. Wynn.

Peace

I think the question needs to be along the lines of "At what point does it become a required double foul? When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a prelimninary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

BillyMac

ronny mulkey wrote
If you also consider that the case play went through a minor change in the wording "rules" verses "calls", then his slant is interesting.

Once again, a case of the NFHS making an "unannounced" editorial change, with no explanation. Why?" Why? Inquiring minds want to know.

ronny mulkey

BillyMac wrote
I know that some respected members of this Forum disagree with me, but, at least in my mind, the casebook always trumps the rulebook. Casebook plays deal with very specific situations, and give a very clear answer as to how to handle that situation. If A happens, then B is the "official" NFHS interpretation, and you penalize with C. In the words of JRutledge, "Clear".

But I hate it when the casebook play doesn't quite match up with the rules, as written. I'm the kind of guy that always wants to know why, and I don't always get that with casebook plays.

On the other hand, when you make a call, maybe a crucial call, and the coach, athletic director, or assigner, or maybe a rookie official, or maybe your partner, comes to you, with casebook in hand, and says, "The casebook play says that when A happens, the interpretation is B and you penalize with C. Why did you interpret A with D, and penalize with E?".

BillyMac,

I think that JAR would explain to the coach, "I agree with my partner that he/she had a much better look since the play was in his primary. But, if my partner and I still wanted to stick with our rulings after consulting with each other, then we would go with the double foul similar to the case play in that book."

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a preliminary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

... When one reports to the table and the other comes along, pushes his partner out of the way, and reports a conflicting call?

ronny mulkey

BillyMac wrote
Once again, a case of the NFHS making an "unannounced" editorial change, with no explanation. Why?" Why? Inquiring minds want to know.

Same old, same old in that regard. But it did have an * prominently displayed in this year's book????

ronny mulkey

BillyMac wrote
... When one reports to the table and the other comes along, pushes his partner out of the way, and reports a conflicting call?

BillyMac,

We heavily influenced with Women's officials down here that always want to adjudicate this play using the Women's method. We have always used this case play to fend them off - "if we have a blarge tonight, then let's use the high school method, report both fouls and get to the POI as quickly as we can."

But, I do think that JAR's slant is interesting.

zm1283

bob jenkins wrote
I think the question needs to be along the lines of "At what point does it become a required double foul? When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a prelimninary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

This is what I've wondered all along.

I'm in JAR's camp. I follow the supposed interpretation of reporting both and going with a double foul (Haven't had a blarge yet, thankfully), but I don't agree with it. I like the NCAAW method much better.

BillyMac

ronny mulkey wrote
BillyMac, I think that JAR would explain to the coach, "I agree with my partner that he/she had a much better look since the play was in his primary. But, if my partner and I still wanted to stick with our rulings after consulting with each other, then we would go with the double foul similar to the case play in that book."

I'm starting to get that (the possibility of a discussion ending with one agreed upon ruling) but I don't quite get that "vibe" from the casebook play, even with the revised wording (rule).

Let's say that we have one official give the blocking signal (no fists, open hands), and the other give a player control signal (hand behind the head), both really selling their calls. Let's also say that the coach is a former official (we actually have a few of those around here). The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed. After the game, he points out the caseplay to his athletic director. The next morning the athletic director calls the assigner. That night, the assigner calls the referee and asks, "Why didn't you rule a double foul on that play, as the casebook play requires?". How do you answer? just another ref made me do it?

BillyMac

ronny mulkey wrote
But it did have an * prominently displayed in this year's book?

Then I apologize for calling the NFHS a bunch of silly monkeys. So it was announced, but was the change explained?

ronny mulkey

BillyMac wrote
I'm starting to get that (the possibility of a discussion ending with one agreed upon ruling) but I don't quite get that "vibe" from the casebook play, even with the revised wording (rule).

Let's say that we have one official give the blocking signal (no fists, open hands), and the other give a player control signal (hand behind the head), both really selling their calls. Let's also say that the coach is a former official (we actually have a few of those around here). The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed. After the game, he points out the caseplay to his athletic director. The next morning the athletic director calls the assigner. That night, the assigner calls the referee and asks, "Why didn't you rule a double foul on that play, as the casebook play requires?". How do you answer? just another ref made me do it?

I have always interpreted this the same way as you. But, it does allow for some wiggle room if you buy into JAR's reasoning especially considering the wording change. And, that reasoning would be that it is a different case play than the one he is proposing.

Maybe, we need two case plays, one of which that would "allow" one ruling reporting one number IF the official defers to the primary.

BillyMac

ronny mulkey wrote
It does allow for some wiggle room if you buy into JAR's reasoning especially considering the wording change.

I appreciate just another ref's reasoning, it's well thought out, and the NFHS had to make that word change for a reason. I'm just not sure what that reason was. Until I see just another ref's photo in the front of my NFHS rulebook, I'm using the "old" interpretation, if, and when, I need it, which will, hopefully, be never.

JRutledge

ronny mulkey wrote
Rut,

Somewhere back there, JAR has been very clear that he thinks the case play that most people refer to does NOT apply to the scenario where two officials come together to discuss conflicting signals. He thinks the case play refers to two officials that remain steadfast with their "rulings" therefore they would use the double foul process outlined in the existing case play. But, because the case play does not expressly forbid it, he thinks that it is okay for officials to discuss and come away with one ruling.

If you also consider that the case play went through a minor change in the wording "rules" verses "calls", then his slant is interesting. At least, to me.

No he hasn't. The issue has long been discussed beyond this discussion or recent thread where he decided to contact Ms. Wynn. And if he wanted true clarification, then make it clear what we have discussed here and what he has actually debated. Do not leave out the most important part of the discussion. If he wants a true answer, then ask that part of the question. If he wants to get what he got with "The officials must come together and decide...." then ask the question he did. No one here to my knowledge has said simply blowing the whistle means we have to stand by our calls each. It is clear the issue is the preliminary signal and if we still go to a double foul.

Peace

just another ref

BillyMac wrote
The officials get together, one changes his "ruling", and the former official coach gets screwed.

Between the arguing over language and intent, one obvious factor has been lost in this thread. By definition, a block and a charge cannot happen on the same play. It is impossible. If you do report both, you know somebody got screwed. If the two officials go with one call, hopefully it is the correct call.

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
No he hasn't. The issue has long been discussed beyond this discussion or recent thread where he decided to contact Ms. Wynn. And if he wanted true clarification, then make it clear what we have discussed here and what he has actually debated. Do not leave out the most important part of the discussion. If he wants a true answer, then ask that part of the question. If he wants to get what he got with "The officials must come together and decide...." then ask the question he did. No one here to my knowledge has said simply blowing the whistle means we have to stand by our calls each. It is clear the issue is the preliminary signal and if we still go to a double foul.

Peace

Rut, there were two e-mails. Apparently, you missed the second one. You were right, too. She did say to check with your state.

just another ref wrote
Okay, here's the rest of it.

Me: Thanks for the quick response. The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals and whether this changes the equation. Please advise.

Her: 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.

ronny mulkey

JRutledge wrote
No he hasn't. The issue has long been discussed beyond this discussion or recent thread where he decided to contact Ms. Wynn. And if he wanted true clarification, then make it clear what we have discussed here and what he has actually debated. Do not leave out the most important part of the discussion. If he wants a true answer, then ask that part of the question. If he wants to get what he got with "The officials must come together and decide...." then ask the question he did. No one here to my knowledge has said simply blowing the whistle means we have to stand by our calls each. It is clear the issue is the preliminary signal and if we still go to a double foul.

Peace

Rut,

For this thread, his position is clear to me. If his questions to Ms. Wynn are not the same questions that you would have asked, then formulate them and request that he send them as you formulate.

For my benefit, what would your question(s) be exactly?

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
If the two officials go with one call, hopefully it is the correct call.

Great point, a discussion between the officials would, most likely, lead to a better call, but I still don't get that from the revised casebook play.

How many times has one official signaled a held ball, and the other signaled a foul. What happens? They get together and figure out which happened first, often based on which official had the better look. And then they decide on a single call. Why can't that happen here (blarge)? Because of the casebook play. It's there in black and white. Take away the casebook play and most of us would be pleased to get together, discuss, and decide on single call. I know that I would.

OKREF

OKREF wrote
I did ask the right question. Here's what I asked and that was the answer I got.

If there is a double whistle for instance on a block/charge, and one signals block, and one signals PC. Does
the moment of the prelim signals mean we have to report both, or could the
two officials get together and decide which to go with.

OKREF wrote
I got this from our association.

In a the case of the double whistle as you have described.....the
mechanic would be for the officials to confer and then report the foul they
believed to have occurred first----just because two whistles were sounded
would not demand that two fouls had to be reported...

bob jenkins wrote
I think the question needs to be along the lines of "At what point does it become a required double foul? When the officials each blow the whistle (with the intent of making different calls)? When they each give a prelimninary signal? After they come together and still can't decide?"

Bob, I did ask that. And the answer I got was the same answer that JAR got. It seems to me that it is required after the two would come together and not agree on one or the other.

BillyMac

just another ref wrote
There were two e-mails. Apparently, you missed the second one ... The main point of contention is what happens when the two officials, unfortunately, mistakenly give opposite preliminary signals ...

I don't like the word "mistakenly". Neither official mistakenly gave a wrong preliminary signal. That would occur if both thought that it was a charge, and one gave a block signal. They both had what they had. No mistake was made in the preliminary signal. It's not a signaling mistake.

One of the calls was a mistake.

« Previous Page Next Page »