foul out and free throws with a T

[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

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, I would rather check with my interpreters and see if they have the same take.

And as I said in my first reply, if they they don't have the same take as the FED, then there's a problem with your interpreters, not with the FED's official ruling.

NF Supplements from where?

From, um, the FED. But since you never personally saw it, you don't need to believe it. That's fine. Stay ignorant, IRut. That's a great quality for an official to have.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Every year, FED issues (about 20) rules interps on the web-site and in OQ. In whatever year this was (2000-2001, iirc), the FED issued (about 20) rules interps and then followed up with additional (about 10) rules interps a couple of weeks later. They were definitely on the web-site and I *think* they were also in OQ.

[JRutledge]

Just so you know.

I emailed Kurt on this question. According to him, this is a correctable error situation. He even referenced the casebook page 60. Then he made the comment that this would be something if it took place his office would hear about.

No reference to 5 year old rulings or justification that I am hearing on this board. Even if what I am reading here is supposed to be used, where is the justification. Most people throw away the NF Quarterly magazines and any other reference that might have possibly supported this ruling. This ruling needs to be in current casebooks if that is what the NF wants. Otherwise you are going to cause confusion with officials that have did not officiated back in 2000-2001 or people that do not have any evidence of this ruling (which would be likely most of us).

For those Illinois Officials that want to see the email, you must email me directly and I will pass it along. I will not take a PM on this email.

Peace