Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Ok, I'm jumping in a long way from the beginning of this conversation, but I would've thought NFHS case plays are no different than court rulings in law. The actual court rulings determine the "spirit and intent" of the written law, and in a lot of cases, expand upon it. Isn't it usually the case that the law is poorly written, and the court cases give guidance on how the law is to be interpreted? How many times do attorneys cite specific cases, rather than the actual law? Isn't this the reason for the NFHS case plays - to expand and explain the intent of the rule? If the Fed. decides they want a different interpretation, they will change the case play accordingly. Therefore, I would conclude case plays take precedence over any possibly unclear wording in the rule itself.
|
All true, but the case law (court decisions) often go back and forth as different judges make rulings or one judge later changes his mind. My point is that the case rulings are temporary thoughts of some individuals while the text of the Constitution has only changed 27 times in the history of our country. It is more stable and when court decisions or federal statutes are made which conflict with it, those decisions and statutes get struck down.
The same is true for the NFHS committee members who may issue a case play or an official interpretation. Other people may or may not be in agreement as these rulings are subject to who sits on the NFHS rules committee at any one time. On the other hand the text of the rule book is less fleeting. Obviously the committee makes rule changes all the time and with much more frequency than the US Constitution is amended, but their rulings still needed to be based upon what is written in the rules book. If they issue something which is obviously in contradiction to the text of the rules, then logic dictates that the rule takes priority. Afterall we must enforce the rules as written!
