Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
... it seems to me the purpose of a Point of Emphasis is to say, in effect, "We're getting lots of complaints that our officials are neglecting [whatever]. The rule on this is already written the way we want it, there's no need to clarify it, people are just forgetting it in administering the game. So please try to remember it." ... if points of emphasis kept accumulating, eventually everything would be a "point of emphasis". And when everything is a point of emphasis, nothing is ... Once you're satisfied enough attention is being paid to X, there's no need to keep emphasizing it, and continuing to do so would be counterproductive to overall administration ... Fed may be chronically abusing the concept of a Point of Emphasis, and labeling things as POE that are really not, such as interpretations ... You can emphasize an interpretation (although the need to do so calls into question whether the underlying rule is written adequately), but the POE itself should not be an interpretation.
|
Agree. Extremely well written. Especially when the "interpretation" from an old one and done POE can't be found in the most current book.
Many times the same POE is resurrected by the NFHS, sometimes more than twice, meaning that the NFHS considers that an issue continues to be neglected.
I believe it was JRutledge who posted earlier that the NFHS should not be using POE to introduce new rules, or new interpretations, and I agree with him.
Yet the NFHS still occasionally does it, and it often leads to lively debate for the rule "watchers" here on the Forum.