Not a chance.

It wasn't changed. They have a limited amount of space in the casebook and probably decided that something else they wanted to put in was more useful to include. It doesn't mean the interpretation is no longer valid when something disappears from the casebook. In fact, I'd suggest that all casebook plays do remain valid even if they disappear unless there is a new ruling to the contrary.

I'm not sure how to take your post, but if you wouldn't mind I'd appreciate your reasoning for calling a block and this case:

10.6.1E (NFHS 2004-05): B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts' B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effrot to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

Are My Pants On Fire ???
 

I was observing the game. The coach said it. Are you calling me a liar?

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

So, you're saying it's not a blocking foul? The NFHS caseplay disappeared. You say it's still valid (and I'm leaning to agree) because there has been no NFHS new ruling to the contrary (just the NCAA, and IAABO).

Turn in your man card.:D

It's not in the current case book.

If you're asking my opinion, I think it's a stupid ruling.

Gotta pick your battles...if you want to keep your stuff...:cool:

In One Year, Out The Other ...
 

Good point. How is an official with less than ten years of experience supposed to know about an interpretation that hasn't been in the casebook for more than ten years?

On the other hand, how is an experienced official who used this interpretation for the nine years that it was in the casebook supposed to know that the interpretation has changed?

Don't you just love it when the NFHS makes unannounced changes?

A stupid ruling that hung around for nine years? And if it was a stupid ruling that was changed, nobody at the NFHS thought that the change was important enough to be announced.

And, we still don't have any evidence that the ruling was changed, the casebook play just faded away. Why? Because it was stupid? Because the NFHS wanted to free up some room in the casebook? Or because it was inadvertently dropped from the casebook (like the multiple substitute lineup rule was inadvertently dropped from the rulebook several years ago)?

Too bad that the NFHS doesn't have a basketball rules editor that actually takes the time to edit.

Correct. There has been no change in interpretation. The interpretation made sense then and still makes sense.

It wasn't changed. There are many things about the job we do that are not spelled out in the books. If the books detailed everything and every angle of every rule, the book would be the size of the OED.

Unless the NFHS says otherwise, correct interpretations remain valid indefinitely.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that a defender who falls early should be charged with a block. :eek::D