Its Got No Teeth ...

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

So where and when was it announced that vanished interpretations are no longer valid?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So where and when was it announced that vanished interpretations are no longer valid?

Where was it published that they are?

Again, if it's not in the current publications, then ambiguous rules are subject to local interpretations as long as those local interpretations don't contradict the rule or case book.

That's a reality of life that your proclamations will not change.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Where was it published that they are?

I said announced, not published.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I said announced, not published.

So my answer to a coach who just had his AC look up a rule or my commissioner or my rules interpreter is that "BillyMac on Officiating.com told us that Ms. Atkinson said, errr ummm, I mean announced..."

Is that how things are done in Your Little Corner?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So my answer to a coach who just had his AC look up a rule or my commissioner or my rules interpreter is that "BillyMac on Officiating.com told us that Ms. Atkinson said, errr ummm, I mean announced..."

Is that how things are done in Your Little Corner?

And a coach would say to me, "Who and who???"

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

"BillyMac on Officiating.com told us that Ms. Atkinson said, errr ummm, I mean announced..."

Another valid point, but why would I, or Camron Rust, post false information?

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

Valid point. Don't believe me, or don't believe Camron Rust, if you don't want to, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't announced.

I have never spoken face to face with any NFHS basketball rules editor, but I tend to believe what other reliable sources tell me was announced.

Maybe we're both conspiring to yank everybody's chain and bust everybody's balls. Just one big practical joke.

Maybe somebody will soon post that I'm a liar.

Why would I do that? Is that my modus operandi on the Forum?

[JRutledge]

Missing the point. Just simply saying it needs to be somewhere we can verify it came from the NF or we will be flying blind on that interpretation. Remember you said a certain interpretation applied and it did not to most of us. It is not about believing anyone, it is what we can verify to those we are discussing the issue locally.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... it needs to be somewhere we can verify it came from the NF ...

Good point. All I'm saying it that it's coming, no need to act on it until it's "published" in some manner.

I got it from somebody who spoke directly, face to face, to Lindsey Atkinson. Somebody who announced it to over two hundred IAABO members, many whom are interpreters, who will take this announcement back to their local boards. Second hand (not third or fourth) knowledge from somebody who is much respected in the IAABO organization, and somebody I trust.

You don't know me. You don't know him. Neither of us has done anything to personally earn your trust. Maybe I still beat my wife? Maybe I still cheat on my taxes?

So go ahead and verify before you act on it. I would do the same.

But it is coming down the pike (unless there is a detour). That's the entire point of this thread, and the only point of this thread. It's not a call to action. Never was.

Does it really sound so implausible to not possibly be true?

[JRutledge]

I am not saying whether it is true, I am saying how are they going to get the specifics to all officials that use NF Rules?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... how are they going to get the specifics to all officials that use NF Rules?

Already answered:

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 starting in 2022-23.

Even after that, without some type of searchable database, it will be the Wild Wild West out there.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good point. All I'm saying it that it's coming, no need to act on it until it's "published" in some manner.

I got it from somebody who spoke directly, face to face, to Lindsey Atkinson. Somebody who announced it to over two hundred IAABO members, many whom are interpreters, who will take this announcement back to their local boards. Second hand (not third or fourth) knowledge from somebody who is much respected in the IAABO organization, and somebody I trust.

You don't know me. You don't know him. Neither of us has done anything to personally earn your trust. Maybe I still beat my wife? Maybe I still cheat on my taxes?

So go ahead and verify before you act on it. I would do the same.

But it is coming down the pike (unless there is a detour). That's the entire point of this thread, and the only point of this thread. It's not a call to action. Never was.

Does it really sound so implausible to not possibly be true?

What does believing you are not believing you have to do with any of this?

You understand the officiating world does not revolve around your little corner of Connecticut or this forum or you or Jeff or me?

Because I know you through a social media site I'm supposed to use you as a source? I'm supposed to feel like I'm personally offending you because I'm not going to cite you?

Are you seriously making this about believing you are not? That is very juvenile.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk