Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I do not understand why we are trying to play games with the rules based on what the rule "used to be."
|
Because, maybe, the NFHS wants to go back to the rule as it "used to be", as evidenced by this recent Point of Emphasis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... the NF has not helped this by using wording that does not coincide with their current rules.
|
Agree 100%. This certainly puts officials, especially clinicians (like, I believe, JRutledge), trainers, and interpreters, "between a rock, and a hard place". Follow the Point of Emphasis, and contradict the rule; or follow the rule, and contradict the Point of Emphasis.
The NFHS doesn't even list a penalty for this Point of Emphasis: violation, technical foul, disqualification, double-secret probation (I assume violation, because that what the rule "used to be")?
Silly NFHS monkeys (with reverence for Jurassic Referee).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I am just calling what the rules are now. There is no extra violation and I am not calling one just because it is in a POE.
|
So, you're unilaterally not going to emphasize a NFHS Point Of Emphasis? Don't you believe that the NFHS is emphasizing something because they want it emphasized by officials?
According to Merriam Webster, emphasize means to give special attention, or importance, to something; so it seems apparent that the NFHS wants us to enforce the following:
"On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line extended into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard."
Do you believe that the NFHS wants us to ignore something that they clearly want emphasized?
Unilaterally ignoring the Point of Emphasis is not the answer. Seeking guidance from the NFHS, probably through one's state high school organization, or one's state officials organization, is the right way to approach this.
As an IAABO member, in a 100% IAABO state, I already know what we'll be doing since we "jumped the gun" last year, and by "jumping the gun", I mean that we were wrong to do so. Now, we have, at least,
some backing from the NFHS, a Point of Emphasis without, unfortunately, a rule backing.
Again, silly NFHS, and IAABO, monkeys.
Who knows (other than the NFHS)? In the end, JRutledge may come out on the right side of this debate. He has several good points (no pun intended), no written rule, no written penalty, no written casebook play interpretation, a Point of Emphasis that will "disappear" from the rulebook the following year, in his favor, but, somehow, I doubt that he'll come out on the side
intended by the NFHS, otherwise, why would they publish a Point of
Emphasis regarding this situation? On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on JRutledge being wrong here, maybe a hundred bucks, but not my house.
I wouldn't bet my house on anything published by the NFHS (see team control/throwin/backcourt). Wouldn't it be nice if the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor actually edited?
For the third time, silly NFHS monkeys.