foul out and free throws with a T

[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?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) your IAABO state interpreter is the person responsible for issuing official FED rulings for your state, similar to Kurt ? in Illinois. Right?

No. The FED is responsible for issuing FED rulings. Our state interpreter (any state interpreter) is there to make rulings where there is no definitive ruling from the FED. IAABO is not a rules-making organization. If my state interpreter intentionally gave me a ruling contradictory to the FED, that would make my state association a rules-making organization; and he's not authorized to do that.

2) If your state interpreter issued a ruling, you wouldn't follow that ruling because you personally disagreed with it?

That's absolutely not correct. However, if my state interpreter knowingly gave me a ruling that was contradicted by a FED ruling, I would disregard the his ruling. If he told me that a blarge was to be administered by yielding the call to the official who primary responsibilty, I would try to correct him by pointing out the correct FED interp. If he said, "I know, but I hate that ruling, so this is how we're going to do it in MA", I would tell him flat out that's not how we're doing it in Springfield.

I get my training from IAABO. I get my rules from the FED.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

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.

[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 zebraman

Again, that supports Chuck's (and everyone else's) view.

Whoa there, Bunky......

What do you mean "everyone else"?

I didn't agree with Chuck's view. Still don't. Not that it really matter though. If the official FED view is different than my personal view, the FED wins....every time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebraman

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.

No I did not. I asked the question similar to the way it was originally asked here. I did not want a ruling based on what I personally felt either way. I also did not give my take of the play or what my opinion was either way. I wanted a ruling. I did not want my point to be supported. In my opinion if the ruling that was posted by Bob was a solid ruling, then Kurt would have known about it (or should have known about it). Remember this 5 and 6 year ruling is supposed to be the law. If it is law, I should never have to “inform” an administrator of the contents. These guys worked with Mary Struckoff personally, I have not. So if Mary Struckoff once was the over the Official’s Department and the current NF Basketball Rules Editor and Supervisor of Officials in NCAA Women’s Basketball, then they can ask her directly what the interpretation should be. All I wanted was an interpretation to clear up either a ruling mistake or something left out.

Originally Posted by zebraman

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.

I have to care becasue I post on a web site? Dude, if I cared, I would post under another name and I would agree to just be agreeable when I clearly have a different opinion.

Peace

[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 Jurassic Referee

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.

JR,

We really do not disagree at all. The original take on this play was based on the fact of what we could find in the current literature. Some people that had another take had every right to point out a contradiction. My contention is always when there are these obvious holes in the rules, you go to your local association, state administration or local rules interpreters to iron it out. I just wanted clarification because I did not want to go to a game and have this happen and take what we said here as evidence of being right or wrong.

In most associations I belong to in all my sports, we have meetings weeks before the actual season starts and many times before there are rules interpretation meetings. We debate over similar issues like this discussion. When people bring up old rulings, immediately we try to get an official ruling from the IHSA Office or IHSA Rules Interpreters. It is not completely uncommon that we get multiple rulings that do not coincide with each other. It is also not uncommon that the interpretation that we are given is not what the NF wants or listed in their publications. For example we were given a zero tolerance with the coaching box last year. I know in football when PSK was put into the rulebooks, there were some multiple interpretations that did not mess with the rules and our state said, "THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT HERE THIS YEAR." Then when the NF makes a ruling that clears up the confusion, we do what they want unless our state takes a position differently than what the NF wants.

I have always understood that what my state might do might be different than what another state does. I have also read many times where someone from a state says they were instructed to something the NF does not want whether it is mechanics or rules. I know for a fact that NF puts out guidelines and an individual state can throw out all the NF guidelines if they want to. We have states using the shot clock and there is no where covering this rule. Do you see people telling them not to use that rule and the NF is the only way to go?

I think it is arrogance for anyone to think what they feel matters to people in other states. I have never officiated in another state and do not plan to anytime soon. If I do move I will conform to their wants and needs like the thousands that have to change things every time they move. I am sure what IAABO does is important to Chuck and what they rule is important to Chuck. But Chuck is very hypocritical when he has many times made claims of rulings that were handed down by his brass and those rulings were not in concert with the NF. Or the ruling was not given directly by the NF. I have read many times when you JR have called him on it.

I completely respect the knowledge that Bob J has. But Bob J and I are just officials. We are not clinicians or rules interpreters. We work for the state when they decide to assign us post season. I cannot speak for Bob J, but I did not get to where I was by trying to be right when the IHSA takes a position that is different than what I understand a rule to be. Kurt made it clear that this might become something that a "Special Report" would be filed on and he would hope the official used the proper ruling. Unfortunately, that ruling was not from 2000-2001.

Peace

[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