[Rick Durkee]

I wish I could change the subject of my original post, but I don’t think I can. I should have used “Interpretations not in the Book” or “Situations…” instead of “Rules…”. I am going to try one more time to see if I can write clearly enough to make my point, and then I am going to let it go.

It sounds like what I am hearing is that there should be no reason for NFHS to publish interpretations or clarifications because all of the answers are in the book if one can just figure out how to piece it together. I am hearing that a diligent reader should be able to interpret accurately every word in the rulebook. If that is true, then the only answer to my original question is to read the book and assume that whatever meaning I make from my reading must be what the rules makers meant.

However, I believe that it is possible for two conscientious people to come to two different, logical conclusions from reading the same language in the rulebook and casebook. When that happens, we need the NFHS to tell us what they intend the words to mean. The Federation (Was Kirk the Speaking Captain?) periodically releases interpretations with information that doesn’t necessarily make it into the rulebook or the casebook. I am trying to find and learn as much of that information as possible, so that I can pass it along to my students. I have learned a lot from regularly visiting this forum. I posted the question so I can learn even more so that I improve my teaching. By my learning, I can improve the learning of my students.

BktBallRef, I apologize if I seemed ungrateful for your response. I really do appreciate it, and I concede that all of the rules are in the book. I wasn’t sure if casebook situations were ever removed even if rules. I understand the casebook changes when rules are changed.

Jurrasic, thank you for your response, as well. I appreciate it.