New Fed "Clarifications"

mick · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 11:45am

http://www.nfhs.org/Sports/basketbal...clarified.html

rainmaker · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:06pm

good call, mick!

How do we get the "news" out to all the coaches, players and parents?

Dan_ref · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:10pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
good call, mick!

How do we get the "news" out to all the coaches, players and parents?

Better question: how do we get the "news" out to all the officials who still refuse to call it this way?

rainmaker · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
good call, mick!

How do we get the "news" out to all the coaches, players and parents?

Better question: how do we get the "news" out to all the officials who still refuse to call it this way?

Care to mention any names? Oooo, catty remark. Do I lose points for that?

mick · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

How do we get the "news" out to all the coaches, players and parents?

That reminds me of a story:

Whadya call a dog with no legs?
Dun't matter. ...He ain't gonna come anyway.

Jurassic Referee · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:22pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Whadya call a dog with no legs?

[/B][/QUOTE]If you throw him in your pool, you can call him "Bob"!

Junker · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:24pm

Put him on the doorstep and call him Mat.

Jurassic Referee · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:28pm

Put him 90 feet from home plate, and call him "First Base".

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:44pm

I sent Mary Struckhoff an email on Sunday night detailing why the Ruling in Situation 7(a) was incorrect. As of last night I had not received a response from her nor had the clarification been posted on the NFHS website.

This morning I received a response from Mary with her telling to read the clarification on the NFHS website.

At this moment, I still am of the opinion that the clarification cannot be supported by rule, but have not started an official reply to Mary. Right now I can only say that I am appalled by the logic used in the clarification and that the NFHS intends to change the rules in 2004-05 to support its clarification.

JRutledge · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 12:51pm

They are going have this clarification that no one will read, no one will understand and that the rulebook will not support. And when a tough play comes up, no one but the NF and a couple of officials will even be aware that there is this clarification. I can see a coach reading this years rulebook to argue or make an issue with and official over this ruling, without ever reading the website.

Peace

rainmaker · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 01:06pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
They are going have this clarification that no one will read, no one will understand and that the rulebook will not support. And when a tough play comes up, no one but the NF and a couple of officials will even be aware that there is this clarification. I can see a coach reading this years rulebook to argue or make an issue with and official over this ruling, without ever reading the website.

In actuality, how often does this sitch come up? I mean how many of you out there in dot-com land have had to use this, or expect to in the next season? I'm not saying it should be ignored, I'm just not sure it's such a huge deal as we are making it out to be.

In my experience, if a coach questions a call and I say, "Yes, coach, I'm sure -- the NFHS put up an official interp in their rulings for the new season" they know they dont have a clue and they drop it. The good ones ask for details so they can improve their coaching. In these cases, Jeff, you are absolutely right about how important it is to have both rules knowledge AND presence. The rules knowledge gets the call correct, and the presence sells it.

But really, how many times is it going to be an issue?

PGCougar · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 01:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by mick

Whadya call a dog with no legs?

[/B]

If you throw him in your pool, you can call him "Bob"! [/B][/QUOTE]

OK, I'll take the bait...

Put him on the wall and call him Art.

Jurassic Referee · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 01:17pm

Quote:

Originally posted by PGCougar
[/B]

OK, I'll take the bait...

Put him on the wall and call him Art.
[/B][/QUOTE]Put him on the hook and call him "Bait"?

Indy_Ref · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 01:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I sent Mary Struckhoff an email on Sunday night detailing why the Ruling in Situation 7(a) was incorrect. As of last night I had not received a response from her nor had the clarification been posted on the NFHS website.

This morning I received a response from Mary with her telling to read the clarification on the NFHS website.

At this moment, I still am of the opinion that the clarification cannot be supported by rule, but have not started an official reply to Mary. Right now I can only say that I am appalled by the logic used in the clarification and that the NFHS intends to change the rules in 2004-05 to support its clarification.

Amen!

mick · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Oct 28, 2003, 01:22pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
The rules knowledge gets the call correct, and the presence sells it.

But really, how many times is it going to be an issue?

...A coupla times more than never, ... maybe.