Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
The NF really made something simple into a very complicated thing. I also do not understand why Billy keeps referencing proposals. Why would anyone care what was proposed and not accepted? That is not how people learn new rules based on what was not accepted.
|
It's a clear as a bell to me, and to a few other Forum members, who view this only as an interpretation clarification. It's simple, easy to understand, and matches up with what most of us have viewed as a flawed interpretation that few of us would ever actually call in a real game.
It's only complicated to those who insist that the NFHS has changed fully to the NCAA rule, and are trying to fit the NFHS rule language to the NCAA rule language, which is a difficult, complicated task because these two rules are not the same. It's like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Not an easy task. A hammer would help, but that would make it more complicated.
Looking at the actual language of the two backcourt proposals gives us some insight, for those who are not closed minded and want to actually work hard to gain some insight into what the newly released rule language really means.
A rule change was proposed that, in essence, changed the NFHS backcourt rule to the NCAA backcourt rule. That proposal was voted down because the NFHS didn't want to fully change to the NCAA backcourt rule. If they wanted to make the full change, they would have voted for it, but they didn't. Why not? Because they didn't want to make the full change.
Another rule change proposal simply made an exception to the existing NFHS backcourt rule so that a highly controversial interpretation could be overturned. This proposal was voted on, and accepted by the committee. Why did they accept this proposal? Because that's what they wanted, to make a controversial interpretation null, and void. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I have seen nothing released but the language of the rule.
|
One can even disregard the portions of my post (above) that dealt with the two proposals. Go ahead, completely disregard those proposals. Totally ignore them (even though they may have some value). That still leaves the original NFHS press release, the rule rationale, the Comment on the Rule, and the interpretation in question. That certainly is a lot more than nothing other than the rule language. One simply has to work hard to seek the truth, open their eyes, gather
all the factual evidence that is available, and open their minds to other's opinions.