Its Got No Teeth ...

[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

Already answered:



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

No it won't be the wild West. It'll be what it had always been, an officiating world where state, local, or association-specific interpretations are used when there's ambiguity in the rule and case books and no current interpretations to address the issue have been published. It's always been like that around here and always will be.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

No it won't be the wild West ... an officiating world where state, local, or association-specific interpretations are used when there's ambiguity in the rule and case books and no current interpretations to address the issue have been published.

I'm actually on the fence as to whether the general statement by the NFHS (assuming it's true) alone is enough, or if a database is actually needed.

Leaving it up to local or state interpreters to decide if a vanished interpretation is valid because there have been no rule or interpretation changes, or invalid because there have been rule or interpretation changes; actually fits our mostly Forum shared philosophy of when in Rome ...

I'm still pleased that the NFHS will say (assuming it's true) that there is no actual statute of limitations on vanished interpretations, that the validity/invalidity of vanished interpretations will rest on rule or interpretation changes; not on whether it's in the current book, or not.

Keep in mind that the motto of IAABO is, "One rule. One interpretation". Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state. That's where my philosophies are from coming from.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... people in my neck of the woods do not care what happens "downstate" let alone what happens several states or organizations away.

Not better or worse, just different for me. Way different. Might as well be from Mars and written in Martian.

Talked with guy's this past weekend from Colorado, Arizona, New England, and many states in the Northeast. Some slight differences, but pretty much all on the same page, speaking the same IAABO/NFHS language about rules, interpretations, mechanics, and signals.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

I think you have your head so far up the behinds of the IAABO people, you do not know how it works with other states. I do not need to believe anything you say. And people in my neck of the woods do not care what happens "downstate" let alone what happens several states or organizations away. So it is not the Wild Wild Anything. States always do what they feel is best. If the NF wants a national application they have to do better than claim something applies and do not know how that information is going to be used.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So it is not the Wild Wild Anything.

My metaphor of the Wild Wild West being likened to "confusion" obviously didn't achieve what I wanted it to achieve.

Now that you understand my metaphor, are you going to take back your earlier post?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I agree with this post above.

Must be a Connecticut, or a New England, thing, equating confusion to the Wild Wild West, because it crashed like a lead balloon here on the multi-state Forum.

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Because I know you through a social media site I'm supposed to use you as a source?

Absolutely not.

I would never use anyone on the Forum as an uncited source, nor would I expect anybody to use me as an uncited source.

But it could put a bug in one's ear to verify an idea that you all heard about from BillyMac and Camron Rust with one's local or state organization.

This thread was never intended to be a call to action. Never.

It was also intended to spark a discussion about the NFHS and vanishing interpretations, nothing more, nothing less.

The validity or invalidity of vanished interpretations has been discussed many times here on the Forum.

I just wanted to add something to the discussion.