I am going to call my game regardless of what the rule says. My main concern is what the contact does, then my focus will be on the feet if I can see it. That was stated very clearly in both IHSA Rules Meetings I attended. So I am not going to nit pick over a toe on the line.
Secondly, whether I personally print this out or not, this is not something I am going to take on the court with me during pregame discussions, when coaches ask the "this happen to us last night" conversations, that we get drawn into from time to time. When game 17 in the season takes place and that coach claims all season long that the officials have been not calling what the rulebook says, I will not have a NF interpretation in my back pocket to give to him. And if I did, it would not be appropriate to have a lengthy discussion about it.
Being a 3 sport official and a Referee (the one with the white hat) on my Varsity Football Crew, you would be surprised when we go through our drill with the coaches during the pregame. And you always have a coach that says, "I have not had that called all season," comments when they ask us about a situation that happen in their game. I do not have a rulebook in my back pocket to add to the discussion. And now with these pregame meetings where we have to involve the coaches in basketball, these similar comments are just par for the course.
Now, if there intent was clear,
WHY NOT PUT IN IN THE DAMN RULEBOOK?!!!! Why not realize this when you are creating these new rules? This is not just a simple mistake, this is a major mistake. That is all we are saying. We are not trying to debate what their intent was, but not understanding why they would make such a change and not use the one publication that is suppose to be clear, put in the the freakin rulebook. And I am by far not the only one that notices this mistake or confusion. It is nice that they have covered their behind like they did in football with PSK, but it seems to me when someone comes up with these brilliant ideas, they could look at all the possibilites that their rule could cause problems with other wording. Better yet, why not look at
Article 3 right under your new rule? Not only did they they make the rule, but they also had to highlight
"playing court" to try to make their point. But considering how they discuss these new rules, it does not surprise me that this would be missed, as usual.
Peace