foul out and free throws with a T

[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

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by 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.

And he's wrong. Just so you know.

Even if what I am reading here is supposed to be used, where is the justification.

In the supplement published by. . . the FED. Which you've thrown away and will ignore, since you would rather be ignorant than know the rule. You are from now and forevermore -- IRutledge.

Enjoy your football season. I'm done trying to help you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

And he's wrong. Just so you know.

Chuck, he may be wrong, but if Kurt Whoever is the appointed rules interpreter responsible for giving out basketball interpretations for the Illinois state association that is affiliated with the NFHS, that ruling is now official in Illinois- only- wrong or not. It will stay official in Illinois until the FED sez different. And yes, Chuck, I certainly realize that your state through your IAABO state-recognized interpreter might issue a completely different ruling, which would be valid for your state.

That is my understanding of the statement in the front of the rule book- "Requests for basketball rules interpretations or explanations should be directed to the state association responsible for the high school basketball program in your state. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from state associations whenever called upon." Rut did exactly that, and got an Illinois ruling.

Iow, it looks like the FED and Illinois might have issued conflicting interpretations.


Bob Jenkins, your take?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It will stay official in Illinois until the FED sez different.

My point is, and has been throughout this discussion, that the FED already has said different.

And yes, Chuck, I certainly realize that your state through your IAABO state-recognized interpreter might issue a completely different ruling, which would be valid for your state.

I'm not sure why, but you and IRut both mention IAABO in your most recent posts. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with IAABO. These are FED rulings, just as much as the airborne shooter rule in 4-1. I would never tell a fellow official to rule differently than the FED. If the state interpreter knowingly told me to this as a correctable error, I don't think I would do it. And I wouldn't tell my guys on the local board to do it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

1)I'm not sure why, but you and IRut both mention IAABO in your most recent posts. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with IAABO. These are FED rulings, just as much as the airborne shooter rule in 4-1. I would never tell a fellow official to rule differently than the FED.

2) If the state interpreter knowingly told me to this as a correctable error, I don't think I would do it. And I wouldn't tell my guys on the local board to do it.

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?

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Chuck, he may be wrong, but if Kurt Whoever is the appointed rules interpreter responsible for giving out basketball interpretations for the Illinois state association that is affiliated with the NFHS, that ruling is now official in Illinois- only- wrong or not. It will stay official in Illinois until the FED sez different. And yes, Chuck, I certainly realize that your state through your IAABO state-recognized interpreter might issue a completely different ruling.

The funny part is I agree with Chuck on many levels with this rule. What I have always disagreed with are these rulings from several years ago and you cannot find the ruling in the current NF books. This is the very reason I emailed the administrator to sort out something that is not very clear. Even in the NF book "Rules by Topic", there is no reference to this issue we are talking about. There is a play that in the book that covers a similar play, but the shooter is not the DQ'd player. Then they insist that anytime the wrong player shoots a FT, this is a correctable error as related to 2-10.

I guess this once again shows the total lack of competence from Chuck and others that feel what they read on this board is LAW. This is why I asked our people to give me a ruling to clear up these issues. If I listen to Chukie, we would enforce some uniform rules that everyone in our state was given when religious and cultural expression were being considered. As a matter of fact, some uniform rules were changed or emphasized to accommodate what we were already doing in our state. I guess the IAABO people know better than everyone else. No wonder people give this organization so much crap.

Peace

[zebraman]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess this once again shows the total lack of competence from Chuck and others that feel what they read on this board is LAW.

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

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

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

And he's wrong. Just so you know.

I do not care what you say about it. I do care what those from our administrative office say about it.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

In the supplement published by. . . the FED. Which you've thrown away and will ignore, since you would rather be ignorant than know the rule. You are from now and forevermore -- IRutledge.

Enjoy your football season. I'm done trying to help you.

I do not need your help Mr. IAABO guy. The NATIONAL FEDERATION changes rulings all the time in multiple sports without notice or without fanfare. Unless you can provide every NF online notice, then I will stick to what our sports administrator says. Now if you feel he is wrong, send him an email and show him how wrong he is. I was skeptical because there this was in the casebook and other than referencing an internet site (which no one important reads as the basis for their judgments in my state) is going to back up when this really happens. Why not use your IAABO influence to change things so this the NF will not be any confusion anywhere across the country.

I always find it funny how people here that spend a lot of time being very critical of the NF for making mistakes, putting in casebook rulings that do not fly with rules, then in this case they are all of a sudden infallible.

Thank you once again for the laughs Chuckie.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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](sic) did not officiate[d](sic) back in 2000-2001 or people that do not have any evidence of this ruling (which would be likely most of us).

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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!