Let go - PLEASE!!!
This absolutely boggles my mind. We had a very interesting discussion of this rule. It could be read in one of two ways. You could either literally interpretat the rule and piece together individual lines in a specific way that led one direction. Alternatively, you could look at spirit of the rule in light of the problem that NFHS appeared to be trying to fix and choose to believe that they failed to reword a line of the rules in order to make their intent perfectly clear. Because of this, there was legitimate argument over what NFHS intended - that's as it should be.
Now NFHS has clarified, and explained in very clear terms how they want it called and why they want it called this way. And their interpretation and support for that interpretation is extremely logical. How can we still be fighting about this, and why?
|