Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Mark, no offense, but all of that is irrelevant. Every single point you make has no bearing at all on the question, particularly when you try to support your view of the FED rule by discussing the NCAA rule. They have nothing to do with one another.
The only relevant thing in your whole post is when you quote the actual rule under discussion:
The rule definitively and unambiguously defines exactly "where the ball is". Its location (including its inbound/out of bounds status and/or its backcourt/frontcourt status) IS wherever it last touched the court or a player. Whatever you think it should say or mean, it actually means exactly what it actually says.
Frankly, I'm astounded that you and JR can read this plain English sentence and come to such a contradictory conclusion.
|
Scrapper:
First, I admit that I did not do my due diligence (That means I just read the ruling and accepted without vetting the rules references that were given. with regard to the NFHS's 2006-07 Supplemental Rules Interpretations. Had I done so I would have sent an email post haste to Mary Struckhoff informing her of my concern and why.
Second, with all due respect, I have been a student of the rules of basketball for 38 years going on 39 years, and I can say without breaking my arm to pat myself on the back, that I have a far better knowledge of the rules and the history of the rules than the vast majority of the members of the NFHS Rules Committee. The 2006-07 interpretation is WRONG!! It is wrong because the rule that is being referenced (R4-S4-A3; please note that the Rules Committee references a rule that does not exist: R7-S5-A9; R6-S4-A3g does not apply; and R4-S36-A2a is the appropriate rule that applies to this play) cannot be applied in the manner that the Rules Committee want to apply it. And the way the NCAA rule is written is relevant because it evolved from the same NBCUSC rule that the NFHS did and in doing so it does an even better job of clearly stating what the NBCUSC, the NFHS, and NCAA have wanted all the 45-plus years.
This is not the first time the Rules Committee has issued and incorrect interpretation. A few years back they published and play and ruling in the Supplemental Rules Interpretations (SRI). The ruling was incorrect. What made things worse were the the following: (1) The interpretation referenced rules that did not apply to the situation or supported a ruling that was the opposite of the ruling was published; and (2) This play had been published a number of years earlier in the Casebook (at the time of the publication of the SRI the play was not in the Casebook any more) and the ruling in the Casebook referenced the correct rules and gave the correct ruling which was the opposite of the SRI. It took three emails to convince Mary to admit that the ruling in the SRI incorrect and to publish a correction.
It is my humble opinion, that while the members of the Rules Committee make a good faith effort in carrying out their duties, there just is not enough research is done by the Rules Committee in the history of a rule or past Casebook plays or interpretations.
It is Sep. 20/Sat.(01:48amEDT), 2008, and my dear wife and I had a long afernoon yesterday getting the concession stand ready for Start H.S.'s homecoming football game and a long night in the concession stand during the game. I am going to bed now and will address a letter to Mary Struckhoff in the early part of next week.
MTD, Sr.