foul out and free throws with a T

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), that would be a problem with your interpreter and not with the ruling. Once a ruling is issued, it is valid until a rule change or different ruling is issued.

Well that is not true at all. We have had rulings in the past that did not go along with past rulings that are no longer in the casebook or rulebook. For the life of me why the NF would not put this ruling in the casebook? This is a very unique situation and I would think would still require this ruling if they want everyone to be on the same page. Many of you might work only basketball and you are not aware what the NF does in other sports as it relates to these rulings in one year and change them in the same season or the following year. It is very common for them to have rulings in other sports only to come back later and correct them. It does not happen in basketball as much because the sport is not a very rules intensive sport. In football this year there were a few casebook mistakes and things that did not go right along with the wording in the rulebook. I will still ask for a ruling from my state and because of the relationship our state has with the NF, I am sure they will get a ruling right from the NF.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is not true at all.

Yes it is.

We have had rulings in the past that did not go along with past rulings that are no longer in the casebook or rulebook.

But until the next ruling came out, the previous ruling remained in effect, right? That's exactly what I said above:

Once a ruling is issued, it is valid until a rule change or different ruling is issued.

The interpretation doesn't become invalid simply b/c it doesn't get put in next year's casebook. The interpretation remains in force until the rule changes or a conflicting interpretation is issued.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Yes it is.

But until the next ruling came out, the previous ruling remained in effect, right? That's exactly what I said above:

The interpretation doesn't become invalid simply b/c it doesn't get put in next year's casebook. The interpretation remains in force until the rule changes or a conflicting interpretation is issued.

OK.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK.

Cool. Jurassic's not the only one who learned something in this thread.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Cool. Jurassic's not the only one who learned something in this thread.

Actually Chuck I do not agree with you. It is football season for me and right now we are debating issues just like this based on rulings that were not in the NF publications, but contradict what the rules say (breaking the huddle with 12 is a great example of this) I disagree with your point of view on this and I am not looking for anyone to agree with me.

Then again, we do not have IAABO interpreters where I live. I am just going to end the conversation because you feel you are right.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually Chuck I do not agree with you.

Of course you don't; because you'd rather be argumentative and remain ignorant. That's fine, if that's what they do in your area. But I'm telling you what I know from conversations with members of the NFHS rules committee. If that's not a good enough source for you, feel free to wallow, my friend.

we are debating issues just like this based on rulings that were not in the NF publications, but contradict what the rules say

Who cares? We're not talking about "rulings that were not in the NF publications". We're talking about a NFHS supplement, published by -- wait, let me think. . . oh, yeah! -- the NFHS!!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Of course you don't; because you'd rather be argumentative and remain ignorant. That's fine, if that's what they do in your area. But I'm telling you what I know from conversations with members of the NFHS rules committee. If that's not a good enough source for you, feel free to wallow, my friend.

No, I would rather check with my interpreters and see if they have the same take. I am not a basketball only officials like you and I have seen how rulings are not always in concert with what the NF uses. Even in basketball last year we were told to enforce the coaching box very strictly, only to now hear our state wants to back off of that philosophy we were told if we do not enforce, we would not work the post-season. Obviously this board and what is said on it means more to you than it does me. I do not work for hardly anyone with people on this board and when things like this happen, I cannot go back to a 5 year old reference as "proof" of my position. So I will ask my state rules interpreters (which have nothing to do with IAABO thank God) and see what they say. Then I will apply whatever ruling they suggest instead of using speculation like we are doing here. Unless you can give me every single ruling since that interpretation from every single publication that the NF put out in the past 5 or 5 years, I will reserve judgment until I ask my people what we are supposed to do.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Who cares? We're not talking about "rulings that were not in the NF publications". We're talking about a NFHS supplement, published by -- wait, let me think. . . oh, yeah! -- the NFHS!!!

NF Supplements from where? Were they posted only on the website? Where they listed in the NF Quarterly (the NF does put many of their website rulings in this publication BTW)? Where did this come from? Other than anyone talking on this board I have no idea where this came from. Let us not forget, someone said that the "Rules by Topic" book was not from the NF.

Peace