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

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well the difference is I am not telling you what you should or should not do. But if you do not want people to question your comments (as you have with others on this topic) then at least acknowledge the reality here. Whatever you ultimately do, the NF has not changed the rule and has not clarified their position officially. Your state might have told you what to do with that confusion, but that does not apply yet to the rest of us. So if we do not follow the POE because it includes things that are not rules, forgive us for wanting clarification.

Peace

Isn't the POE clarification as how they want it called? A released POE seems like clarification to me.

[Rich]

Play nice. Argue the post, not the poster. I really don't want to close this thread.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Isn't the POE clarification as how they want it called? A released POE seems like clarification to me.

Yes, but they are usually based on actual rules or interpretations that can be found in the actual literature. I cannot think of a time where a POE created a rules change without the rules actually being changed. For the record, I am talking about how this applies in all NF sports, not just basketball. Also when there is some wording that has had confusion or might not be totally correct, those situations are usually clarified by the NF.

Peace

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, but they are usually based on actual rules or interpretations that can be found in the actual literature. I cannot think of a time where a POE created a rules change without the rules actually being changed. For the record, I am talking about how this applies in all NF sports, not just basketball. Also when there is some wording that has had confusion or might not be totally correct, those situations are usually clarified by the NF.

Peace

Doesn't that POE history make you think that the error was excluding it from rules? I really don't believe that this is a case of a POE creating anything.

I'm not saying anybody should just assume the violation, but I'm not going to be surprised if I'm told to call it one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Doesn't that POE history make you think that the error was excluding it from rules? I really don't believe that this is a case of a POE creating anything.

I'm not saying anybody should just assume the violation, but I'm not going to be surprised if I'm told to call it one.

Rules changes are voted on and accepted. So if it was intended to be a rules change, they should have simply stated their intention. They had months before last year to do just that. Then this year they could have changed the wording like they do other things and they didn't.

Again, when you look in the actual rules, this is not a violation anywhere in the actual rules. That is a problem no matter how you want to minimize that fact. That is what you they should have done if they suggest they want consistency. As I have said before, we're just a small sample size to all the officials. I know there are officials that have noticed this inconsistency and will either not go along with the POE's wording or go only with what is in the rulebook. If you want inconsistency, stay the course and say nothing. At this point without clarification I am not calling a violation for this. I will call a foul if needed because nothing in the rule contradicts calling a foul when appropriate.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich

Play nice. Argue the post, not the poster. I really don't want to close this thread.

You should have closed it about 165 posts ago, imo.

[Rich]

Agreed, Bob.