|
It seems, sometimes, we can get so caught up in some obscure interpretation, of what has been previously clearly understood, we foget the option of simply stating, "No, that's not what it means".
Just because someone applies a new interpretation based on some unique understanding of what means something different to everyone else, doesn't mean that interpretation is acceptable, or requires additional language.
What would be helpful with these recurring disputes would be an available mechanism whereby disputes of this nature could be addressed quickly, a binding conclusion determined and an official pronouncement (i.e Case Book addition specifically addressing the issue) made in a timely fashion. I know that type of mechanism is supposed to currently exist, but it honestly doesn't seem to work all that well and is anything but timely, at least at the NFHS level.
It's really not rocket science. Most organizations appoint an "Interpreter" whose job it is to resolve questions for that organization. When the question can't be resolved, there is usually a "State Interpreter" available to help clarify the question. State Interpreters have access to NFHS Interpreters as a resource, and if/when an issue has multi State implications.
Usually, these questions boil down to a simple, "Yes/No"determination, either the new interpretation applies, or it doesn't. If a lengthy debate and discussion may be required at the upper most rule making level, fine, that can take place AFTER a "here's how we're going to deal with that pending further review" decision addresses the issue.
Part of the process has to be a willingness to accept the decisions rendered, even when we disagree with them, knowing that there is a way to present the nature of the disagreement to the appropriate level. Rules change, and the appeal process to amend rules is ongoing, the problems come up when there is confusion about how the rule is to be enforced, right now and getting "right now" decisions made faster and distributed better would be a big help.
|