Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BayStateRef
Interesting discussion.
I called my board interpreter to get his take. With no prompting, he said it was a correctable error. I challenged him, citing the rule (4-14-2) that a player is not disqaulified until the coach is notified. He did not budge. Then I told him of the 2001 Fed ruling. That got his attention. He called another interpreter, who had the other view -- the one that backs me and the Fed. So my interpreter called me back and said his ruling is now that the points stand because of the clear language of 4-14-2.
In the end, he said he did not have a good explanation as to why the Fed issues a ruling, but does not keep it current. As I review the casebook plays like this, it seems that the "obvious" rulings remain in the case book, but this one gets pulled out. As for the Illinois ruling, I wonder if the interpreter would have a different view if he had all the facts -- as my interpreter did.
|
In my opinion, you have an excellent interpreter. He gave you his thoughts. He listened to your counter, and still thought that he was right. He then further listened when you gave him something specifically written by the NFHS. He now made the extra effort to check with someone else.
Finally, he was big enough to admit that he was mistaken. Even he learned something today and he is now a better prepared interpreter for it!