foul out and free throws with a T

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Yet you withheld information that would very likely have led to an answer that would contradict your opinion. Very clever of you to bank on the fact that others in your area also unaware of the official FED ruling so that you can get someone to agree with you.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It sounds like to me that there are people [INSERT JRutledge] 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.

No, you did less. You presented a question without all the known facts with the motive of extracting an answer to your liking. You got an opinion, not a definitive ruling. You knew about the FED ruling and didn't ask him if that was still current...the legit thing to do if you really wanted to find out the real answer.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Yet you did exactly what you didn't want. You got a personal opinion if you knew about details that the other person may have not had available to him. Give him the entire picutre if you're not too afraid to be wrong.

[rockyroad]

I called one of the Statre Clinicians/Interpreters here in the wild west...he told me that there was a ruling "several years ago" that told us that the player was not dq'ed until the coach was notified - so notify coach, get the kid out, and go from there...he knew about the ruling - maybe not what year it was, but he knew that there was an official interpretation from the NFHS... and I didn't have to prompt him, or try to trick him, or anything...Zebraman, maybe our interpreters are just smarter than the ones in Illinois?!!?

And btw guys...that Ignore button is wonderful!!

[JRutledge]

I will never understand why people are so invested in what I think about this rule. This conversation is based on a find that most people have not seen. This is why I asked my interpreter and I wanted his take. This is not even a likely situation in the first place.

Many here sound like a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses debating religious expression.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Many here sound like a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses debating religious expression.

That's not how Jehovah's Witnesses sound when they debate religious expression around here. In fact, it's very unlikely that you'd ever hear them debating religious expression, so why are you so concerned about what they sound like? I'm going to email my pastor and ask him what Jehovah's Witnesses sound like, but I won't tell him that they're debating religious expression. If you want a copy of the email that I get back from him, let me know.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

That's not how Jehovah's Witnesses sound when they debate religious expression around here. In fact, it's very unlikely that you'd ever hear them debating religious expression, so why are you so concerned about what they sound like? I'm going to email my pastor and ask him what Jehovah's Witnesses sound like, but I won't tell him that they're debating religious expression. If you want a copy of the email that I get back from him, let me know.

It explains a lot.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will never understand why people are so invested in what I think about this rule. This conversation is based on a find that most people have not seen. This is why I asked my interpreter and I wanted his take. This is not even a likely situation in the first place.

Many here sound like a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses debating religious expression.

Peace

We're not so concerned about what YOU think about the rule. We just want to prevent the spread of the ignorance that you exude.

[Camron Rust]

I just thought of something....

If the clarifications on 4-23 were not completely reprinted this year, I can interpret "playing court" to mean the area OOB and allow a defender to plant a foot on the live to cut off a dribbler while being able to draw a charge!!!

[Rick Durkee]

I ran this by the folks at IAABO. (Well, the original question, not the other garbage in this thread.) You don't need to remind me that IAABO is not the authority, but I figured their position on the matter counted as much as any of ours. They believe that the points stand and that this is not a correctable error.

[BayStateRef]

I emailed Kurt and gave him all the information, including the 2000-01 Fed interpretation.

His response, in full:

"Thanks for the note. My interpretation is that the correctable error rule is the rule in question and not 4-14-2."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I emailed Kurt and gave him all the information, including the 2000-01 Fed interpretation.

His response, in full:

"Thanks for the note. My interpretation is that the correctable error rule is the rule in question and not 4-14-2."

Can I get an interpretation of what he is saying?

Is he still going with his original ruling that it's still a correctable error, despite the previous NFHS ruling?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I emailed Kurt and gave him all the information, including the 2000-01 Fed interpretation.

His response, in full:

"Thanks for the note. My interpretation is that the correctable error rule is the rule in question and not 4-14-2."

With this kind of thinking from the leadership in Illinois, I can understand why Rut is so screwed up.

I can respect that Kurt doesn't personally agree with the official NFHS interpretation of this play, but he needs to state that until he is able to work with the NFHS committee to get it changed that ruling and NOT his personal interpretation is controlling and is what should be followed by officials.

He is not more important than the NFHS.

[JRutledge]

Nevada,

You are right. We should all bow down to the NF and anything they want. No dissention what so ever or suffer severe consequences. Sounds a lot like the Nazis and Communist governments from where I am standing.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

I'm surprised you didn't also mention the KKK. While your at it would you also like to blame WWII on the NFHS?

The point is that an individual can disagree all he wants with the establishment. That is certainly his right in this country, but while doing so, he still has to respect the established authority. When people stage political protests they do so under certain regulations and also are prepared to pay the consequences for their actions. That was always the way MLK advocated in his peaceful protests during the Civil Rights movement.

It seems to me that this Kurt guy is doing neither. He is not paying proper respect to the NFHS rules committee and their already issued ruling, nor does he seem to be taking any action through the proper channels to get what he disagrees with changed. Instead he is just saying "I'm right, they're wrong, and I'm going to do what I want." That's a very childish view for an adult in a position of authority to take in my opinion.

[ChuckElias]

You had to mention the KKK and MLK in a thread that IRut has already chimed in on. Would you like some gasoline with that fire?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

You had to mention the KKK and MLK in a thread that IRut has already chimed in on. Would you like some gasoline with that fire?

Nope, but we're probably gonna need some popcorn.