How do you emphasize a rule that doesn't exist?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Why are you attacking OKREF for doing what he's been told to do? Shouldn't we all be doing what we're told to do?

How about becoming part of the solution instead of reiterating the problem that we all know exists?

I'm criticizing the NFHS and state of Oklahoma. But OKREF keeps defending his state's decision makers, so he catches the flack by proxy. He instead should have been questioning his state for passing along bad info without further clarification.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm criticizing the NFHS and state of Oklahoma. But OKREF keeps defending his state's decision makers, so he catches the flack by proxy. He instead should have been questioning his state for passing along bad info without further clarification.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Huh?

The only thing OKREF said after his initial post was "And we've been told to follow the POE". I think I'm going to avoid posting what the Ohio High School Athletic Association and/or my assignors tell me to do, because it sounds like it will get twisted into me too blindly following somebody.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Huh?

The only thing OKREF said after his initial post was "And we've been told to follow the POE". I think I'm going to avoid posting what the Ohio High School Athletic Association and/or my assignors tell me to do, because it sounds like it will get twisted into me too blindly following somebody.

If they pass on bad information and as a serious official one doesn't at least send an inquiry back to the state, well I just don't know what to say about that.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If they pass on bad information and as a serious official one doesn't at least send an inquiry back to the state, well I just don't know what to say about that.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I asked about the POE. I also said there was nothing in the rulebook disallowing a defense player from crossing the free throw line, and I asked do we follow the rulebook, or the POE. The answer I got was the POE is an extension of the rule. I sent an inquiry asking the relevent question. I don't need to keep going back and forth and argue with the people who make the decisions here. I know some people on this forum would do that, but I prefer to just do as I'm instructed.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If they pass on bad information and don't at least send an inqiiry back to the state, well I just don't know what to say about that.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

My boss doesn't have to tell me why I have to do something at work, I just have to do it. Just like in this case. It would be nice to get further clarification, but it's certainly not necessary for me to do my job.

And what does it matter? Would you like a representative of the NFHS to make a video, apologizing for their mistake?

We'll ask our "people" what they want to be done, and we should do it. Plain and simple. If you want to talk about their decision, and the merits of such, that's fine. But to attack somebody that's just "following orders" is ridiculous.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I asked about the POE. I also said there was nothing in the rulebook disallowing a defense player from crossing the free throw line, and I asked do we follow the rulebook, or the POE. The answer I got was the POE is an extension of the rule. I sent an inquiry asking the relevent question. I don't need to keep going back and forth and argue with the people who make the decisions here. I know some people on this forum would do that, but I prefer to just do as I'm instructed.

The bad information was the verbiage about the type of foul to call if there was illegal contact.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

My boss doesn't have to tell me why I have to do something at work, I just have to do it. Just like in this case. It would be nice to get further clarification, but it's certainly not necessary for me to do my job.

And what does it matter? Would you like a representative of the NFHS to make a video, apologizing for their mistake?

We'll ask our "people" what they want to be done, and we should do it. Plain and simple. If you want to talk about their decision, and the merits of such, that's fine. But to attack somebody that's just "following orders" is ridiculous.

They put out bad information about the type of foul to call for illegal contact. Did you even know that?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

They put out bad information about the type of foul to call for illegal contact. Did you even know that?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Are you talking about the preseason guide that I first brought up in this thread? The thing about the technical foul? I looked back and I don't see where Oklahoma or OKREF talked about what type of foul to call should one occur.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The bad information was the verbiage about the type of foul to call if there was illegal contact.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I understand that. Did I ever say anything about that? If you read the actual POE from the NFHS it says nothing about contact.



FREE THROW SHOOTER
Rule 9-1-3g was revised in 2014-15 to allow a player occupying a marked lane space to enter the lane on the release of the ball by the free thrower. As a result of this change, protection of the free thrower needs to be emphasized. 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. A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Why are you attacking OKREF for doing what he's been told to do? Shouldn't we all be doing what we're told to do?

How about becoming part of the solution instead of reiterating the problem that we all know exists?

I am not attacking anyone. I just have been in a state that has noticed the NF screw up and does not blindly go along with it. It seems like every year the NF Guidebook has issues that our state has to clarify and usually tells us the guide is wrong. It happened this year in football. The Head Clinician in that sport went around talking about the mistakes and told us not to follow them.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes, and according to the POE, once the violation happens the ball is dead, and contact not incidental is a Technical foul since it is dead ball contact.

Hmmmm.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not attacking anyone. I just have been in a state that has noticed the NF screw up and does not blindly go along with it. It seems like every year the NF Guidebook has issues that our state has to clarify and usually tells us the guide is wrong. It happened this year in football. The Head Clinician in that sport went around talking about the mistakes and told us not to follow them.

Peace

The guy shared with us what he was told, and it sounded like he was being hounded. And I don't agree that the state, in this case, "blindly" went along with it. Like others have said right here, it was clearly meant to be in the rules, but was mistakenly left out. Why would they have a POE without meaning to make it a rule?

I know... using logic is bad.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Hmmmm.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I got another quote for you, which came shortly after that from 10 days ago..

Originally Posted by OKREF

I don't recall ever saying that it was right. I was just relaying what was printed, and I also believe I said we will have to wait and see if we get clarification from the NFHS.

You're still going on about that?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Hmmmm.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

That isn't from the actual POE, it's from a magazine article, which after the fact I shouldn't have typed "according to the POE". It's all good though, I don't have to worry about what people in other states have been instructed to do. I asked, found out,

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm criticizing the NFHS and state of Oklahoma. But OKREF keeps defending his state's decision makers, so he catches the flack by proxy. He instead should have been questioning his state for passing along bad info without further clarification.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Actually on the NFHS website, this appears.

Interpretations: All interpretation questions are to be directed to the local state association. The NFHS only addresses interpretations at the request of the state association.

So, I correctly ask my rules interpreter, following the guidelines of the NFHS, get an answer, and I'm wrong for that. Our director of officials also told me he would pass my questions on up to the NFHS. So, like I said, I will still do as instructed by my state until further notice.