Its Got No Teeth ...

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yeah you can. We are not having this conversation where everyone has this announced to them regardless of jurisdiction.

No you can't.

Well, you actually can, but you can't and be right.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ms. Atkinson announced that a statement regarding the continued validity of old vanished interpretations (with no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such), will probably be printed in the beginning of the NFHS Casebook and/or Rulebook, starting in 2022-23..

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The same was also stated at the NFHS State Rules Interpreters meeting. Old cases remain valid unless there has been a rule change or a new interpretation that negates the old case.

One may be ignorant regarding the NFHS announcement, but once pointed out, "It's not in the book", is no longer a valid response for ignoring a vanished interpretation for that single reason, one now needs to back it up with a rule change, or a interpretation change.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...if they want that interpretation to apply, it is better to list them somewhere for all to see or they will get different applications.

Agree, my Wild Wild West scenario.

[JRutledge]

You can quote yourself in this discussion all you like Billy, but the point is that you must make the information available or you are risking that everyone involved will not be aware of previous interpretations. Again, I do not work with or am an IAABO member. I work for two different states that do not necessarily follow each other and their procedures. So if the state associations are not aware of such information (and they may not be) then we are flying blind to the wills of the NF if they have something else in mind. When you contact the NF they often send you back to your state association for an interpretation. So if they wish to have that interpretation the NF puts out, then you have to make that information readily available. Us talking here does not change that fact. Again most people never will know we even had this conversation or the information you just put out. For all we know there might be some facts missing, meaning there have been different conversations, or what your group might help with is never done. Until we all are made very clear that some interpretation 5, 10, or 20 years ago was published, we might not be aware of its impact and will do what is already listed or what was instructed. And based on previous information, states had all the power in interpretations of how to handle things not clearly stated. That would be a total change regards to what we are talking about here.

Again, stand by my position as to how it works. Also, the law is published and there are places to find out where a ruling has been taking place. Often interpretations are not very well known or somewhat of a secret. That is the issue here for me, not what the intentions might be.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You can quote yourself in this discussion all you like ...

I was paraphrasing the new NFHS rules editor for basketball.

One can solely say, "It's not in the book", and be correct in one's local area, or state, but don't count on the NFHS to back you up.

The NFHS will back you up if you say, "This vanished interpretation is no longer correct because rule XXX changed", or "because X.X.X changed the vanished interpretation".

But "It's not in the book" alone will no longer cut the mustard.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was paraphrasing the new NFHS rules editor for basketball.

One can solely say, "It's not in the book", and be correct in one's local area, or state, but don't count on the NFHS to back you up.

I do not work for the NF and the NF does not give me games or any assignments whatsoever. So not worried about what they would back me up with. They are not the people I ever have to answer to. In one state we never take any NF tests. So why would someone like me care in that situation?

Exactly!!!!

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was paraphrasing the new NFHS rules editor for basketball.

One can solely say, "It's not in the book", and be correct in one's local area, or state, but don't count on the NFHS to back you up.

The NFHS will back you up if you say, "This vanished interpretation is no longer correct because rule XXX changed", or "because X.X.X changed the vanished interpretation".

But "It's not in the book" alone will no longer cut the mustard.

...in your Little Corner of Connecticut.

Not sure how you can speak for others and their situations.

I'm trying to figure out whom exactly I would be having a conversation with in which the phrase "the vanished interpretation says...." is made.

I've never had the NFHS come in and "back me up" before. What does that look like?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again most people never will know we even had this conversation or the information you just put out.

True, but it doesn't mean that the NFHS basketball rules editor hasn't ruled as we have been discussing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

True, but it doesn't mean that the NFHS basketball rules editor hasn't ruled as we have been discussing.

Again I do not work for this person. And unless there is something they are putting out so that all can see, then they are sending a message in a bottle and hoping it goes across the ocean to land.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

True, but it doesn't mean that the NFHS basketball rules editor hasn't ruled as we have been discussing.

"BillyMac on social media said that Lindsay Atkinson said...."

Yeah, that's the way to earn a reputation as a "rules guy", relying on and passing along 3rd and 4th-hand conversations.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No you can't.

...
One may be ignorant regarding the NFHS announcement, but once pointed out, "It's not in the book", is no longer a valid response for ignoring a vanished interpretation for that single reason, one now needs to back it up with a rule change, or a interpretation change....

No matter how much you may want to put your own definitions and criteria to this matter, if something is LITERALLY NOT IN THE BOOK, then "it's not in the book" is a true and factual statement. Vanished interpretations do not float in a cloud over the court for us to grab in the middle of a game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

No matter how much you may want to put your own definitions and criteria to this matter, if something is LITERALLY NOT IN THE BOOK, then "it's not in the book" is a true and factual statement.

Agree, but "It's not in the book" can no longer be the sole reason to ignore or disregard vanished interpretations when one is made aware of them. One needs additional references.