[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This was the exact wording of my question below.



You answered by referencing simply 10-6-1. Maybe you did not understand the question, but no where in that rule (reference) is that term listed "Protect the shooter" listed. Now if that is questioning your integrity in that certainly was not the intention, but just pointing out that you clearly were not correct based on where it was listed in the rulebook. You said the term "Protect the shooter" was listed in that rule and it clearly was not the case. Now you either lied, mislead or did not read the rule you referenced, but that is totally wrong all the same. I did not ask you where you got the thinking or where the rule suggests your way of thinking. I asked a very specific question that had a basic yes or no to it or the reference that was appropriate. That is more than a viewpoint. That is like saying the rulebook color is green when you know it is purple. Now maybe you are colored blind I do not know, but I was not asking for an opinion, I was asking for a specific reference that clearly was not there.

You know, if that is OK with you stick with that story.

Peace

I'm color-blind and horrible at identifying purple so I just learned something new. And if someone wants to say that "protect the shooter" is in the NFHS rules then the closest reference would be the wording in ruling 4.1.1 from the case book.