Just a coupla points from my perspective......

1) If IHSA through it's rules interpreters handed down an interpretation on this play, then that IHSA interpretation is now an official ruling for all of Illinois.

2) Bob J. did not hand down his <b>opinion</b> or <b>interpretation</b>. Bob supplied us with an NFHS-issued ruling. Afaik, that ruling is an official ruling also and is still in effect, until the FED issues another ruling contradicting it.

Therein lies the problem. We got dueling rulings, and I don't really have a clue which one the FED currently prefers. I do know that Illinois officials should be following the IHSA-issued ruling until something else comes out, but that doesn't apply outside Illinois.

Interesting situation....

I've got my new books. Nothing has changed with regards to this one.

Once again, I agree with you for the most part.

The only part I would disagree is this is something that other states would not draw a similar conclusion. The NF does not even have this ruling in their current books. You can let them know of whatever ruling once was posted, but you are assuming they will buy that. They might have similar questions as to why this cannot be found in the current books. This was my main concern and why I asked our state guy to give me an answer. I am sorry I did not lead him to an answer that fit everyone. I feel if you know something, I do not need to lead you anywhere. He gave me a ruling on something in the spring and I did not ask a leading question. I asked him what the ruling was and he cleared it up.

Peace

Look out folks, I am going to AGREE whole-heartedly with Rut on this point! :)

Why the NFHS issues these rulings and fails to insert them into the case book and keep them there each successive year is a mystery to me. Perhaps it cuts down on the number of pages in the books and thus saves them some money in printing cost. If that's the reason, it is certainly a poor one, especially when compared to the value of having a clear ruling for these situations in print and available to current officials. The very least the NFHS could do is create an archive of these past interpretations on its website and make that accessible to the public.

The NFHS drops the ball, in my opinion, whenever they do this.

Not when there is a clear, in print, ruling directly from the FED. It's not a matter of me disagreeing with the interpreter but a matter of the FED already having a ruling on it.

This is not unlike court cases. The legislature writes the laws, people take the issues to court. The court writes their ruling on the matter. That ruling stands until a higher court says otherwise or the lawmakers change the law.

Interpretations are written to help understand what the rule was meant to do....just like court decisions. Those interpretations do not change just because a new opinion is not published in the current year. It stands until some action occurs to change it.

Should it be in the casebook? Perhaps. The case book would be several times the size it is today if they did put ALL prior (and still valid) interpretations in. Those that are the most commonly faces and the most interesting do get in...but not all. Personally, I will all of them were there with notes about the year they were published. It would make it easier.

Camron,
I understand exactly how it works and the legal analogy is a very good one.
However, there are huge law libraries with the Federal Supplement books and computer databases with ALL of those past court decisions in them that are available for purchase no matter how old they are. So a lawyer can go buy the book from 1985 and have a copy of those rulings, if he needs them.

The situation with the NFHS rules books and case books is not like that. Other than MTD, I don't know of anyone that has an extensive library of past volumes of these books. The NFHS does not maintain an archive of them on its website. Furthermore, my state office doesn't have copies from even the past five years.

So, if someone is a new official where are they going to go for this information? How are they ever going to know about an interpretation that was published ten years ago? If it weren't for this forum, I wouldn't know about the 2000-01 rulings because I never saw the books or any interps from that season. I was living in Austria that year and did not officiate NFHS basketball.

So Bob Jenkins how about putting the whole list from that year up for me? Please!

I understand that the NF destroys old books. I am sure they might keep some around, but they destroy most of the books. Or that is what someone was told when trying to get old books for a football class that is run in our area. This might be one example as to why you cannot get these books from past years.

This has always been my point when we look at several year old rulings. These rulings may not always apply and sometimes they change without warning. I would not be surprised if there was another ruling in that time frame that contradicted this ruling back in 2000-2001. I think you need a copy of all the rulings from 2001-2006 to know for sure if this still stands. Either way it goes, ask your local people what they think. If you want to inform them of every ruling known to man, do that as you see fit.

Peace

Interesting discussion.

I called my board interpreter to get his take. With no prompting, he said it was a correctable error. I challenged him, citing the rule (4-14-2) that a player is not disqaulified until the coach is notified. He did not budge. Then I told him of the 2001 Fed ruling. That got his attention. He called another interpreter, who had the other view -- the one that backs me and the Fed. So my interpreter called me back and said his ruling is now that the points stand because of the clear language of 4-14-2.

In the end, he said he did not have a good explanation as to why the Fed issues a ruling, but does not keep it current. As I review the casebook plays like this, it seems that the "obvious" rulings remain in the case book, but this one gets pulled out. As for the Illinois ruling, I wonder if the interpreter would have a different view if he had all the facts -- as my interpreter did.

I would think so if he was pointed to the 2001 ruling. Our state has had a few interpreters and I never knew any of them who intentionally conflicted with a FED ruling. Most rule interpreters would probably appreciate getting all the info rather than having given out a conflicting interpretation. I know our current state rule interpreter has been given info before that has led him to change his interp and he has appreciated the help.

Z

In my opinion, you have an excellent interpreter. He gave you his thoughts. He listened to your counter, and still thought that he was right. He then further listened when you gave him something specifically written by the NFHS. He now made the extra effort to check with someone else. Finally, he was big enough to admit that he was mistaken. Even he learned something today and he is now a better prepared interpreter for it!

The funny thing about the way this discussion has turned is many of you are "assuming" how the conclusion or the ruling was drawn. I did not ask this question in person, I sent it in an email. The reality I have no idea how the interpretation was concluded. I asked a questioned and would believe that they would check with the appropriate people to get an answer. For all any of us know he could have got right on the phone and called Mary Struckoff personally (who worked in the IHSA Office). There are also two individuals in that office that I am aware of that are current sports NF Committee members (Baseball and Football). And the head of the IHSA was on the Basketball Committee as of two or 3 years ago. This is why Mary Struckoff came back to an IHSA event to give a presentation about what the NF was doing. Now I have not read of anyone here being at such an event where Mary Struckoff came to your area and spoke to your group about anything. Now maybe that has happen, but when we debated mechanics here I quoted Struckoff and what the position of the NF on the different mechanics we use. I am sure Mary Struckoff is a phone call or email away.

It sounds like to me that there are people that are so intent on being right, they have lost focus as to why this is a debate. Even if the ruling I was given is totally wrong, I did more than most did here. At least I asked my interpreter (and the head rules interpreter at that) for his position on a rule. I was also planning on asking other rule interpreters that I know and in some cases work for. Some of us actually take action, they do not sit behind a computer screen and ***** they did not here what was right.

I did not ask anyone else because I did not want a "personal opinion." I wanted to hear this from the person that decides who works playoff games, not someone who helps him make those decisions.

Peace

Sounds to me like someone is pretty intent on kissing someone's @$$ in order to get a playoff assignment. :eek:

BTW you didn't get a personal opinion. You got an official NFHS interpretation, courtesy of Bob, which you just refuse to accept.

Are you having trouble admitting that you do not have the answer Nevada? ;)

Bob is not a rules interpreter. Bob and I do not work for the NF and never have. He shared a 6 year old ruling with the board. Bob, me or you are not IHSA Rules Interpreters or Clinicians (in any sport). I only work on a committee with the IHSA and that committee does not deal with rules or mechanic issues in any sport. I do accept that this was once the ruling, I do not accept that is still applies or is even acceptable today. The great thing about this country is we can believe whatever we like.

As to be expected we have people that think what is said here takes precedent over all other rules interpretations or the people that have been hired to give interpretations. The last time I checked any interpretation comes from people. Do not come here on one hand and be critical of the NF because they did not list an interpretation when you clearly were not around to accept the interpretation, then in the next statement get upset because I decided to get clarification.

You cannot have it both ways.

Peace

I do have the answer. Bob provided it to me and to everyone else reading this forum.

He doesn't have to in order to READ and pass on an OFFICIAL NFHS written ruling. He's not interpreting it and neither am I.

Why not?
Do you have an official written statement from the NFHS which says that it is no longer in force? NOPE
Do you have a more current ruling from the NFHS? Nope, you have an email expressing the "opinion" of some guy in Illinois who might give you a playoff game. The way you bow down to this email one would think that it was written on a stone tablet and given to Moses on the mountain top!
I've got news for you, even your big shot Illinois man is fallible.
(BTW, I bet that this guy's email doesn't say to ignore that six year-old ruling or that it is incorrect. It is quite likely that he doesn't even know about its existence. Why don't you send it to him and see what he says specifically about it? When he responds you can post it here for everyone to see. Come on now, don't be scared. :eek: )

No one is claiming anything of the sort.

What is being stated is that an official interpretation issued by real people on the NFHS rules committee, which was posted here by a forum member for everyone to read, has priority over everything else when it comes to NFHS basketball until that same body says otherwise.
Yet you prefer the personal opinion of one man in Illinois typing on his computer.

Then again, perhaps you believe that that interpretation wasn't really written by people, but by aliens! :eek: