1) Disagree. Isn't IAABO the recognized rules-interpreting body for high school basketball in your state? If so, then that is where IAABO is involved and that is why I mentioned it. Unless I've got the whole procedure wrong, your IAABO state interpreter is the person responsible for issuing official FED rulings for your state, similar to Kurt ? in Illinois. Right?:confused:

2) Are you serious, Chuck? If your state interpreter issued a ruling, you wouldn't follow that ruling because you personally disagreed with it? I can't agree with that stance either. Wouldn't the proper procedure be to ask your state rules interpreter to get a further ruling from the FED Rules Committee before telling the world that he is wrong?

I would certainly hope that a state would never intentionally come up with a ruling contrary to a FED ruling. Mechanics seem to have a life of their own and we can live with that.... but how confusing it would be for a coach to learn the rules and then have a state do their own thing in direct contradiction to a "book rule."

The only time that I have ever seen a protest upheld in our state it was because an official screwed up a rule. Imagine a game that ended in dispute and the school protested because the official screwed up an NFHS rule. Then the state office says, "no, we decided to put our own rule in instead." Have fun with that one.

Hey Rut, did you specifically tell "Kurt" about the FED interp that directly contradicts what he said? I've talked to our state rule interpreter before and been given a certain ruling. When I called him back later with some info that conflicted his initial ruling, he admitted mistake and changed his mind. "Kurt" might do that too if pointed to the Fed ruling.

You referred to a case play where the DQ's player is not the shooter. I assume you are talking about case play 4.14.1 Sit C. You are right that the DQ's player is not the shooter, but the whole point of that case is noted in the Comment: "This is an official's error and not a correctable error situation." Again, that supports Chuck's (and everyone else's) view.

Z

P.S. For someone who doesn't care about what anyone thinks on this board, you are sure going to the ends of the earth to try to not be incorrect. :)

There's where we disagree also. Aside from personal issues, Bob Jenkins supplied an NFHS ruling that is fairly recent. That ruling is <b>LAW</b> imo until something further is issued.

You got a further ruling from Illinois apparently. That means that that ruling is now <b>LAW</b> in Illinois. It doesn't necessarily mean that your ruling is <b>LAW</b> in Chuck's state. Chuck's state could issue a completely different and conflicting interpretation, and that interpretation would now be <b>LAW</b> in Chuck's state.

The only real solution imo is to get a definitive, current rules interpretation from the FED which would apply to <b>all</b> states.

Somebody on this Forum being right or wrong shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be getting an official interpretation that everyone on this Forum can agree with, so that the right call is made if this situation ever comes up.

Whoa there, Bunky......

What do you mean "everyone else"?

I didn't agree with Chuck's view. Still don't. Not that it really matter though. If the official FED view is different than my personal view, the FED wins....every time.

No I did not. I asked the question similar to the way it was originally asked here. I did not want a ruling based on what I personally felt either way. I also did not give my take of the play or what my opinion was either way. I wanted a ruling. I did not want my point to be supported. In my opinion if the ruling that was posted by Bob was a solid ruling, then Kurt would have known about it (or should have known about it). Remember this 5 and 6 year ruling is supposed to be the law. If it is law, I should never have to “inform” an administrator of the contents. These guys worked with Mary Struckoff personally, I have not. So if Mary Struckoff once was the over the Official’s Department and the current NF Basketball Rules Editor and Supervisor of Officials in NCAA Women’s Basketball, then they can ask her directly what the interpretation should be. All I wanted was an interpretation to clear up either a ruling mistake or something left out.

I have to care becasue I post on a web site? Dude, if I cared, I would post under another name and I would agree to just be agreeable when I clearly have a different opinion.

Peace

Easy there grumpy. :D

I didn't mean that you agreed with the ruling, I meant that you agreed that the Fed had ruled on this issue as to NOT be a correctable error. Now if I could only remember what the original issue was. :)

Z

That's what I figured. See, these rules interpreter's don't always remember every single ruling that came along. Just like we have to crack the books once in a while when we get a little hazy on a rule.

I'm quite certain that had you pointed him to that fed ruling, he would have said, "well, there you have it Rut. It's already been ruled on." Any rules interpreter that I have ever known would not intentionally contradict a ruling from the FED.

Z

No. The FED is responsible for issuing FED rulings. Our state interpreter (any state interpreter) is there to make rulings where there is no definitive ruling from the FED. IAABO is not a rules-making organization. If my state interpreter intentionally gave me a ruling contradictory to the FED, that would make my state association a rules-making organization; and he's not authorized to do that.

That's absolutely not correct. However, if my state interpreter knowingly gave me a ruling that was contradicted by a FED ruling, I would disregard the his ruling. If he told me that a blarge was to be administered by yielding the call to the official who primary responsibilty, I would try to correct him by pointing out the correct FED interp. If he said, "I know, but I hate that ruling, so this is how we're going to do it in MA", I would tell him flat out that's not how we're doing it in Springfield.

I get my training from IAABO. I get my rules from the FED.

Exactly, Z. But it's more fun for IRut to be argumentative.

JR,

We really do not disagree at all. The original take on this play was based on the fact of what we could find in the current literature. Some people that had another take had every right to point out a contradiction. My contention is always when there are these obvious holes in the rules, you go to your local association, state administration or local rules interpreters to iron it out. I just wanted clarification because I did not want to go to a game and have this happen and take what we said here as evidence of being right or wrong.

In most associations I belong to in all my sports, we have meetings weeks before the actual season starts and many times before there are rules interpretation meetings. We debate over similar issues like this discussion. When people bring up old rulings, immediately we try to get an official ruling from the IHSA Office or IHSA Rules Interpreters. It is not completely uncommon that we get multiple rulings that do not coincide with each other. It is also not uncommon that the interpretation that we are given is not what the NF wants or listed in their publications. For example we were given a zero tolerance with the coaching box last year. I know in football when PSK was put into the rulebooks, there were some multiple interpretations that did not mess with the rules and our state said, "THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT HERE THIS YEAR." Then when the NF makes a ruling that clears up the confusion, we do what they want unless our state takes a position differently than what the NF wants.

I have always understood that what my state might do might be different than what another state does. I have also read many times where someone from a state says they were instructed to something the NF does not want whether it is mechanics or rules. I know for a fact that NF puts out guidelines and an individual state can throw out all the NF guidelines if they want to. We have states using the shot clock and there is no where covering this rule. Do you see people telling them not to use that rule and the NF is the only way to go?

I think it is arrogance for anyone to think what they feel matters to people in other states. I have never officiated in another state and do not plan to anytime soon. If I do move I will conform to their wants and needs like the thousands that have to change things every time they move. I am sure what IAABO does is important to Chuck and what they rule is important to Chuck. But Chuck is very hypocritical when he has many times made claims of rulings that were handed down by his brass and those rulings were not in concert with the NF. Or the ruling was not given directly by the NF. I have read many times when you JR have called him on it.

I completely respect the knowledge that Bob J has. But Bob J and I are just officials. We are not clinicians or rules interpreters. We work for the state when they decide to assign us post season. I cannot speak for Bob J, but I did not get to where I was by trying to be right when the IHSA takes a position that is different than what I understand a rule to be. Kurt made it clear that this might become something that a "Special Report" would be filed on and he would hope the official used the proper ruling. Unfortunately, that ruling was not from 2000-2001.

Peace

No matter what I said, it would not have mattered to you. So if you feel he is wrong, do what I suggested little Chuckie do. It is not like his email address is not public.

Peace

I think you are a little uptight because the Red Sox are not going to the playoffs. :eek:

Also Chuck you are FLAT OUT WRONG about the role of rules interpreters from each state. A state can make rulings and they do make rulings outside of the NF all the time. If that was the case there would have been a girl here a few years ago that would not be allowed to play basketball and sweats because she was Muslim and did not want to wear any shorts or that did not fit the color requirements. I guess I was being argumentative when they made that ruling and issued a statement to every basketball official to allow this even though it did not fit the "NF rules" to the letter. They allowed a girl to wear gray sweats and a long T-shirt because she was Muslim and did not want to show as much skin based on her Muslim Religion. Some officials did not allow her to play (as they should of when using NF rules) and then were told to ignore the rule. The same goes for a male player that is wearing a head dressing that clearly under NF rules is not legal. He has a letter from the IHSA office allowing him to wear this head dressing in order to express his religion. So why are these things OK and your assertion correct? These rulings were issued to tell officials to ignore the strict rule in cases of religious expression and when players and teams had been informed.

I guess you know. ;)

Peace

Grumpy? <i>Moi?</i>:confused:

I agreed that Bob J. supplied a FED ruling that stated that my opinion was wrong. That FED ruling is now definitive as far as I'm concerned. Iow, as stated before, I was wrong. Now we have a conflicting Illinois ruling. Well, that rule is now a definitive ruling in Illinois imo. That doesn't mean that it's also a definitive ruling in the other 49 states. And that is unfortunate, and that is why we need something new out of the FED that will apply everywhere. It's not a matter really of any official here being right or wrong; it's a matter of getting a ruling that we all can use uniformly.

Make sense, Z?

Chuck, I know where you're coming from. This one is kind of a unique situation though. I can see different state interpreters issuing conflicting rulings, even with the existence of an old NFHS handout. Jmo, but I think that this one needs to go in the current case book someplace, and only the FED can do that.

Unless all interpreters read rulings posted here or hold on to several year old rulings, then all 50 states are not going to be on the same page. We cannot get different officials in different areas in my state to always agree. If the NF feels strongly about this ruling, they should update their books to support it. I have yet to receive this year's rulebook. Who knows maybe this will be covered in a clearer manner.

Peace