Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Mary Struckhoff, as Rules Editor, she is NFHS. There cannot be 50 different interpretations to a play. There is only one intepretation to a play and it is the NFHS interpretation.
|
Mark,if you go back and re-read the posts:
1)the official IAABO response,as agreed to by Mary Struckhoff,says that it is a violation,and,-quote"it would be considered good officiating technique for the official after this occured to issue a warning that if a team persists in such tactics a technical foul would be assessed"-unquote.This,supposedly,is the one interpretation that you are talking about above that is definitive.
2)Mark T. DeNucci Sr.,who is a member of the IAABO Visual and Education Committee,says it is a violation,BUT-quote"this is not a delay of game warning situation,nor is it ever a technical foul for delay of game"-unquote-ALSO-quote"so forget this delay of game warning manure"-unquote.
Now,without even getting into why Dick Knox and Mary Struckhoff of the Fed rules committee disagree,could you tell me how you can disagree with your own association-IAABO?Also,how can you disagree with the Fed definitive response by Mary Struckhoff?Can you really blame TH for getting frustrated with you?You've inserted your own interpretation into this, and no one in an official capacity(Fed or IAABO) has agreed with it.Re-read Crew's Rome quote-he gave you good advice.