Steve,
If you carefully read the first part of my post that you quoted , I hope you will see that I am in "violent agreement" with your comments in the paragraph you wrote beneath that quote.
By my read of the BRD and Carl's series of articles on the subject, I would guess that he is not a big fan of the Rumble ruling on the question. However, despite that, I believe he suggests that it SHOULD BE followed in ruling on the situation because it IS the official interpretation, is further reinforced by the "Situation 19" posted on the NFHS website in the 2006 rulings (referenced by Bob Jenkins earlier in this thread), and has not been superceded by ANYTHING. Yet.
JM
|