Questions we want the NFHS to answer

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by cdaref
Can the casebook "add" a rule that is not in the book? Interesting. The casebook can certainly clarify or give examples of the application of rules in the rule book, but can it add a rule that isnt explicitly in the rule book? An interesting question. Maybe that is getting a little to "lawyerly" in my source of rule analysis. But interesting none the less. I'm still going to have to think about this one.

Thanks for bringing this up, Nevada. Maybe I am sick in the head (well, ok, I definately am) but I like examining the rules this closely.

I too enjoy the close examination and discussion of the rules. Also I'm sure that JR and others on this forum do as well or they wouldn't be posting here.

If you wish to use our country's legal system as an analogy think of the NFHS basketball rules in the following manner:

1. The 20 Basketball Rules Fundamentals = the U.S. Constitution

2. The NFHS Rules Book = the Federal Statutes

3. The NFHS Case Book = the body of case law consisting of the decisions made by the federal court system

4. The NFHS Rules committee = the U.S. Congress and also plays the dual role of the U.S. Supreme Court

5. The individual HS state associations = the state legislatures or executive branches depending upon which is most appropriate (How is business conducted by that HS state association? One person has the say or there is a governing group.)

6. state adoptions to NFHS rules = the state laws


Now can Federal judges, including the Supreme Court Justices, make new laws with their decisions? Have they in the past? Should they?

These are questions that get debated in our society all the time.


Personally, I happen to believe that there are examples of NFHS case plays that establish a ruling that is not supported by wording the Rules Book.

If anyone cares to inquire, I'll cite some examples.