Its Got No Teeth ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One of the IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, the one now serving on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, is considering forming a committee of IAABO members to collect and edit such interpretations, and has asked me to volunteer if such a committee is formed.

I have agreed to help out if IAABO decides to move in that direction.

Sounds very labor intensive, and very boring, but it may be a worth while endeavor.

So these are interpretations for IAABO people, not for the rest of the country that never was a member of IAABO?

Does us no good.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So these are interpretations for IAABO people, not for the rest of the country that never was a member of IAABO?

While the NFHS fully supports the idea of a searchable database of such interpretations, it claims it doesn't have the resources to collect and edit these interpretations.

Over the past few years (but not always) IAABO has had a very close working relationship with the NFHS. If IAABO decides to independently do the "heavy lifting", I'm pretty sure that the searchable database generated would be shared with the NFHS.

I've already shared my Word Documents (similar to what's already on the Forum but better organized and formatted) of twenty-five years of NFHS Annual Interpretations (1996-97 through 2020-21) with the IAABO Co-Coordinator of Interpreters now serving on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, who is trying get this project off the ground.

Twenty-five years of NFHS Annual Interpretations is a good start, and the digital format makes it easy to edit.

The collection and editing of casebook interpretations will probably be a more difficult endeavor, not being sure how far back digitally formatted casebook interpretations go before one bumps into the "printed word".

The NFHS wants this done. IAABO wants this done. Who knows? Maybe it will get done? Or maybe it won't?

[JRutledge]

So does that mean the NF will approve all those interpretations or will this be an IAABO thing that they will not cross-check? So if something contradicts current rules basis on something done 18 years ago, who is going to make sure we are not giving contradictory information?

I find that rather funny that the NF does not have resources to simply put out information they previously published, but can put out other publications in their name and sell that content. Sound like something they just do not want to do or causes them issues if something contradicts current information.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So does that mean the NF will approve all those interpretations or will this be an IAABO thing that they will not cross-check? So if something contradicts current rules basis on something done 18 years ago, who is going to make sure we are not giving contradictory information?

To start, it will be up to the IAABO committee formed (if it is formed) for this purpose to separate vanished, but still valid interpretations; from those vanished because they are no longer valid interpretations.

Hopefully this will be double checked by the NFHS before being "published".

Will there be errors? With, or without, the input of NFHS, of course there will errors, but these will eventually be weeded out.

Even with errors, it's still better than what we have now with the official position of the NFHS that, as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

Without a database, that leaves us with a Wild Wild West scenario, with local interpreters (trainers), or state interpreters (trainers), IAABO affiliated, or not IAABO affiliated, making individual and unilateral decisions about the validity of a vanished interpretations, deciding individually and unilaterally whether relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, have occurred.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I find that rather funny that the NF does not have resources to simply put out information they previously published ...

I do too, but it's a labor intensive endeavor. The collection of old ("previously published") interpretations is the easy part, it's the editing for continued validly that's the hard part. And don't forget, the NFHS covers about two dozen different sports.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Sounds like something they just do not want to do or causes them issues if something contradicts current information.

Lindsey Atkinson, the new NFHS rules editor for basketball, stated that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

She stated this not only to IAABO, but to other organizations (according to Camron Rust) as well.

It appears that Ms. Atkinson, and the NFHS, is willing to talk the talk, but is not willing to walk the walk, choosing theory over practice.

So do we believe in her support of this concept? Time will tell.

[JRutledge]

Until they make something available to all officials, coaches, and players, then that is what will cause the confusion. Not the fact that something might have been used and never make it to the Case book, but the fact that it could be forgotten or overlooked and no place to confirm. Not sure why they just do not put all interpretations that are current in the casebook.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Until they make something available to all officials, coaches, and players, then that is what will cause the confusion.

Agree, thus my reference to the Wild Wild West.

But at least we now know that vanished interpretations can't be considered to be invalid solely because they are no longer the current book, there has to be some other reason, a rule change, or an interpretation change.

We can no longer use the argument, "It's not in the book", to ignore a vanished interpretation, rather, we have to point to a specific rule change, or a specific interpretation change.

Are we in a better place?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not sure why they just do not put all interpretations that are current in the casebook.

Already stated.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ms. Atkinson stated that … usual reason for still valid casebook plays to be dropped is due to page limitations, when a new caseplay goes in, one usually has to come out.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... the reason given was publishing limits...that they have a target number of pages in the books. She said that, for every case they add, something has to come out. So, they try to pick ones that are not as likely to be needed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We can no longer use the argument, "It's not in the book", that ship has sailed, to ignore a vanished interpretation, rather, we have to point to a specific rule change, or a specific interpretation change.

Yeah you can. We are not having this conversation where everyone has this announced to them regardless of jurisdiction. So yes, it does apply if you have an interpretation in 2001 and we are in 2021 and someone was not aware of such interpretation. Again, if they want that interpretation to apply, it is better to list them somewhere for all to see or they will get different applications.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

To start, it will be up to the IAABO committee formed (if it is formed) for this purpose to separate vanished, but still valid interpretations; from those vanished because they are no longer valid interpretations.

Hopefully this will be double checked by the NFHS before being "published".

Will there be errors? With, or without, the input of NFHS, of course there will errors, but these will eventually be weeded out.

Even with errors, it's still better than what we have now with the official position of the NFHS that, as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

Without a database, that leaves us with a Wild Wild West scenario, with local interpreters (trainers), or state interpreters (trainers), IAABO affiliated, or not IAABO affiliated, making individual and unilateral decisions about the validity of a vanished interpretations, deciding individually and unilaterally whether relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, have occurred.



I do too, but it's a labor intensive endeavor. The collection of old ("previously published") interpretations is the easy part, it's the editing for continued validly that's the hard part. And don't forget, the NFHS covers about two dozen different sports.



Lindsey Atkinson, the new NFHS rules editor for basketball, stated that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS.

...

If old interpretations disappear, then follow the rules and case plays as written. If they are open to interpretation, then organizations/localities need to decide how to handle the situations.

I really don't think it's that serious.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If old interpretations disappear, then follow the rules and case plays as written.

Sounds like a rational plan.

All that's really changed is that we can no longer utilize the, "It's not in the book", argument.