New '16/17 Casebook Arrived

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this. This is "back in the old days", not applicable to today in the Internet Age, right? The reason I ask is that if the NFHS is steering toward this once again, changing 9.12B by an unannounced rule change isn't exactly the best way to enact it.

And when has the concept ever stopped the NFHS from using an unannounced rule change. LOL!

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

And when has the concept ever stopped the NFHS from using an unannounced rule change.

My nomination for "Post O' The Month".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

And when has the concept ever stopped the NFHS from using an unannounced rule change. LOL!

MTD, Sr.

Or even going directly against a clear and complete rule. In this case, the rule that says the throwin spot is the OOB point closest to the point of the infraction...with the only exceptions being that you move to the lane line extended if the infraction was in the lane or to the division line if the infraction is a technical foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My nomination for "Post O' The Month".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Or even going directly against a clear and complete rule. In this case, the rule that says the throwin spot is the OOB point closest to the point of the infraction...with the only exceptions being that you move to the lane line extended if the infraction was in the lane or to the division line if the infraction is a technical foul.

And we do not even have Mary Struckhoff around to blame for this mess anymore, LOL!

MTD, Sr.