Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner.

I was saying from the beginning that the new "exception" had nothing to do with the rule is was supposedly excepting.

This could have been an editorial change. They did not need an exception to a rule the exception does not apply. All they did was make the rule more confusing. Most people will never see this specific conversation or all the literature, especially after this year if they do not change any wording or interpretations.

Peace

Quantum Physics On The Forum, How Cool Is That ??? ...
 

It was the interpretation that was confusing, especially when the NFHS told us that a player could simultaneously be the last to touch and the first to touch (one player could do both in a split second, like quantum physics, that it is possible to be in two locations at the same time). Technically, according to some on the NFHS rules committee, the original rule language could be subjected to a ton of very literal scrutiny to agree with the stupid interpretation.

Whether we would have called the violation, or not, at least now we have a rule that gets rid of what most of us believed to be an erroneous interpretation. We probably won't see this in a game (give a million players a basketball on a court with a division line for a million years and it might happen once), but when the situation shows up on a written exam, all of us will be able to confidently answer correctly, based on the new rule language.

Ask, and it shall be given you. (Matthew 7:7)

Let's all hope that it's sooner rather than later.

Again, this was confusing because they added an exception to a rule that does not address that actual rule. I could give a damn what the interpretation that no one knew was even there. Again, not everyone reads the casebook that deep to the point they know of a situation like that. Instead, they caused a great deal of confusion from almost everyone as to what they meant and I am not talking about the people on this site. There was serious confusion at all the high school camps I attended and even most needed a clarification to even get what they wanted. This was an internal conversation turned to everyone else.

It is also tone deaf when you do not realize that there are officials that also work other levels that might also be confused by your rule. The rules should be for everyone to understand, not just people on the committee.

Peace

Not The NFHS's Finest Hour ...
 

Most of us would agree that this was not the NFHS's finest hour.

First a stupid interpretation (maybe correct after very literal word by word scrutiny combined with some quantum physics) that few of us would have called, even after the stupid interpretation was first published. Then the NFHS doubled down on the stupid interpretation. Then, when presented with a rule exception proposal to change the stupid interpretation to something less stupid, the rule committee had difficulty coming to an agreement as to whether, or not, the stupid interpretation was correct. Then, after finally agreeing that the stupid interpretation was incorrect, and then agreeing on a rule change, the NFHS published a press release that could have been more detailed, like mentioning the stupid interpretation that was fixed, that left many guessing about the intent of the change (maybe due to a second proposal, voted down, that changed to the NCAA backcourt rule).

Yes, this was not the NFHS's finest hour.

Agree 100%. We shouldn't have to know the secret handshake to understand the rules.