Its Got No Teeth ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

It looks like a NFHS rulebook or NFHS casebook citations.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It looks like a NFHS rulebook or NFHS casebook citations.

So it will be listed directly in the published books? If the answer is no, then what are we talking about here?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So it will be listed directly in the published books?

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 ... 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.

If by published you mean all valid interpretations printed in a book with paper pages, then probably not.

The idea of a searchable digital file has been discussed, but it definitely won't be the NFHS that initially builds this database. If built, I hope that the NFHS would publish it (online), and that it not be only made available to IAABO members.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It looks like a NFHS rulebook or NFHS casebook citations.

Well, if it's an active publication, why would I need to the NFHS come in and "back me up". I just say "it's in the rule book/case book" or "the NFHS put out an interpretation for this play for the 2021-22 season".

I think delusions about what the NFHS does, especially in-season.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I just say "it's in the rule book/case book" or "the NFHS put out an interpretation for this play for the 2021-22 season".

Or the NFHS put out an interpretation (caseplay or annual) for this play in 2015, and has stated that old interpretations are still officially valid if there haven't been any relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, and there haven't been in this situation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Or the NFHS put out an interpretation (caseplay or annual) for this play in 2015, and has stated that old interpretations are still officially valid if there haven't been any relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, and there haven't been in this situation.

I'm in a brick locker room with no Wi-Fi access having a pre-game with 2 newer officials, so I'm not saying something stupid like that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm in a brick locker with no Wi-Fi access having a pre-game with 2 newer officials, so I'm not saying something stupid like that.

Another good point.

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.

Look guys, I'm not saying the anybody here has to jump the gun. All I'm saying is that it's coming down the pike. Might even take a full year to show up in written form.

At this point we all know that the NFHS has never announced that annual interpretations and vanished caseplays have a statute of limitations.

Also, the idea that old vanished interpretations (with no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes to invalidate such) are still valid has never been published by the NFHS, and has never been made known to any of you by any source more reliable than Camron Rust or BillyMac.

Don't believe me? Fine. Don't believe Camron Rust? Fine.

Why would we lie, or mislead? Why would our sources mislead us?

Don't put any of this into action this year. I get it. I would do the same and not put something like this into action before checking with my local interpreter.

[JRutledge]

I do not know what the NF has said. Don't care. I do know there have been rules changes and information in the casebook that clarified a situation of that new rule based on the change (BC Violations for example). Don't care what has a statute of limitations, but would like to know if something has changed. You said that the elbow situation was standing and there was never a rule stating that was even valid in any rulebook. It was a POE that addressed a very specific situation and then was never spoken of again by the body that put out that interpretation. Just saying, we go by publishing literature, not innuendo and people from several states away (which both you and Cameron are to me). No one knows who you are, so referencing you does not help me here. And I live in the relative backyard of the NF.

Peace