[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you're advocating a change to permit greater use of computers, every device out there is covered by the rule and every device on the horizon is also covered by the rule and is prohibited. A "computer" doesn't just mean a desktop or a laptop computer. Your smartphone is a computer too. A tablet is a computer. An iTouch is a computer. They're all just very small computers. They're all prohibited unless used for statistics only.

"transmission device" pretty much covers about anything that could be used to send or receive information form/to anywhere.

I suppose you could argue that we can't tell whether they are being used for stats or not but no rule change will change that.

Are you saying you think they should loosen the rule to allow computers of some types?

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'm saying that has technology evolves, they will have to become more descriptive and address new innovations and products. They will have to make changes either by rule or by case play or interpretation. It's my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine. Time will determine if I am correct.

Wow...I guess time has proven me correct.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

From: Mary Struckhoff

To: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011
Subject: RE: iPad use on the bench
*
10-2-3 definitely needs to be updated to keep up with technological advances, but a computer or iPad could be used for anything that paper could have done (stats, draw up plays, etc.). Basically, the only things they can’t be used for are electronic communication with players (speaking to them thru the device and a receiver) and video replay.
*
Yes, it’s difficult for officials to “police” what the devices are being used for, but most officials and state offices assume teams/coaches are in compliance unless proven otherwise. If you want to have a state-wide prohibition against these devices, that would be up to you. But they are permitted, with a few restrictions, by rule.
*
Hope that helps.
*

Mary

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm sure that the following is what your SRI received. I can't say why this ruling is being issued by Mary Struckhoff seeing that her resignation from the NFHS became effective on Sept. 30, 2011.

I'm betting she was asked to stay on until a replacement was named. I haven't seen an announcement that anyone has been hired yet.