View Single Post
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 08, 2010, 02:16am
yawetag yawetag is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence.Dorsey View Post
I know I am a little late on the OP above but believe it or not the same interpretation was given in one of our meetings this year as well. It was near the end of a meeting and I raised a few questions but no one else jumped in on my side. I have an hour ride home from our meetings and the more I thought about what had happened, the more I felt like our clinicians were wrong. I sent an email to them and cc'ed our assignor. They checked with the state office which informed them they were incorrect and the lines were part of the lane.

The new interpretation was given as result of the point of emphasis on the 3ft lane given in the FED book this year. The phrase "the runner must be completely INSIDE the lane" to avoid a possible interference call had thrown them off I think. Ultimately, they corrected themselves to the group and all was well. I am glad I spoke up.

Lawrence
We had our rules meeting today, and I'm sure it was the same slide. Our instructor already knew it was a hot topic, and stated that his interpretation was that the running lane included the lines. He also stated he would be contacting the other 4 interpreters in the state to get a final ruling between the five of them, and would notify us through the organization on how it should be called.
Reply With Quote