Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
(Invalid) Definitely never officially stated by the NFHS. Nothing officially stated by the NFHS to the contrary.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
(Valid) Never officially stated by the NFHS, but often assumed to be true by many, but not all, officials.
|
I was uninformed and spoke prematurely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
That ruling is definitely still valid. Someone from this forum communicated it to the NFHS and a ruling was issued. Nothing in the rules has changed since that play ruling was issued. It fits perfectly with the current NFHS rules.
|
Is this our Rosetta Stone? Is this the answer to our questions regarding such? If it's good for one "vanishing" interpretation, is it good for most (or all, assuming no rule change)?
Wishful thinking? No such luck. This idea will go down like a lead balloon.
But it is one small piece of the evidence puzzle for those Forum members that agree with Nevadaref and me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Old Interpretations Never Die ...
|
Even then, we still have the issue of old Points of Emphasis.
Nevadaref may disagree with me, but I believe that old Points of Emphasis (like "vanished" casebook plays, and annual one-time interpretations) are still valid as long as there are no relevant rule changes and/or interpretation changes to invalidate such.
Very interesting.
Stupid NFHS.