Purdue - IU Blarge

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Sent an email to the editor of the NFHS books and she agreed with me, along with my assignor and the supervisor of officials in my state.

She did not simply agree with you. She stated a position and you did not inform her of the conflict to that position (according to your posting her). She gave you a position of a level she came from, which might have been correct for that level, but was not for the level she took over. And she also did not change anything as in the current book the interpretation or language has not at all changed. Again, I do not know what your supervisor of your state does, if I recall they had a mechanic that no one in the country ever did with their 2 person system based on what someone said that once was in the NF Rules Editor position. So what your local state does is great, but then make that clear. No person in my state has taken that position and this situation has come up multiple times since we had that conversation about what Mrs. Wynn apparently responded to you.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

She did not simply agree with you. She stated a position and you did not inform her of the conflict to that position (according to your posting her).

I have no idea what this means.

This is a quote from her email:

Ruling a double foul on a block/charge would not be the thing to do.


I don't know how much more plain it can be.

[asdf]

and you didn't have the guts to challenge her...... (it's not the first time she was wrong)

that makes it worse

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by asdf

and you didn't have the guts to challenge her......

that makes it worse

Challenge her about what?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Challenge her about what?

About issuing a ruling contrary to the rules and case play that she presided over.


Why didn't she see to it that this was publicized to all FED members? (I know the answer)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by asdf

About issuing a ruling contrary to the rules and case play that she presided over.


Why didn't she see to it that this was publicized to all FED members? (I know the answer)

Obviously, I don't see it as contrary. A bunch of people here read the email who do see it as contrary. As far as I know, nobody else contacted her.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Obviously, I don't see it as contrary. A bunch of people here read the email who do see it as contrary. As far as I know, nobody else contacted her.

Ok....

how about a link or an official correspondence from your state advising how this is to be handled?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by just another ref

As far as I know, nobody else contacted her.

you would be wrong

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by asdf

About issuing a ruling contrary to the rules and case play that she presided over.


Why didn't she see to it that this was publicized to all FED members? (I know the answer)

Exactly and that is why no such change has ever taken place in the interpretations that she precised over. It is still in the casebook and clearly he never pressed her on the contradiction. That is why I do not care what she told him, I care what she has done since. I even do not care what his state person says if there is nothing in writing. I am a clinician with the state and people say, "Why don't they put it in writing?" I agree with that position and ask for clarification in writing when they want everyone to follow a procedure or rule and they often do.

Peace