I would certainly hope that a state would never intentionally come up with a ruling contrary to a FED ruling. Mechanics seem to have a life of their own and we can live with that.... but how confusing it would be for a coach to learn the rules and then have a state do their own thing in direct contradiction to a "book rule."
The only time that I have ever seen a protest upheld in our state it was because an official screwed up a rule. Imagine a game that ended in dispute and the school protested because the official screwed up an NFHS rule. Then the state office says, "no, we decided to put our own rule in instead." Have fun with that one.
Hey Rut, did you specifically tell "Kurt" about the FED interp that directly contradicts what he said? I've talked to our state rule interpreter before and been given a certain ruling. When I called him back later with some info that conflicted his initial ruling, he admitted mistake and changed his mind. "Kurt" might do that too if pointed to the Fed ruling.
You referred to a case play where the DQ's player is not the shooter. I assume you are talking about case play 4.14.1 Sit C. You are right that the DQ's player is not the shooter, but the whole point of that case is noted in the Comment: "This is an official's error and not a correctable error situation." Again, that supports Chuck's (and everyone else's) view.
Z
P.S. For someone who doesn't care about what anyone thinks on this board, you are sure going to the ends of the earth to try to not be incorrect.
