Case Book Question

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Be that as it may, mistake or not, the FED has now made it clear that this is how the plays are to be called. Whether you or any of us disagree with the FED interpretation is simply moot.

Dem's the rules.

and that's what we're doing -- we're "mooting" it.

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Be that as it may, mistake or not, the FED has now made it clear that this is how the plays are to be called. Whether you or any of us disagree with the FED interpretation is simply moot.

Dem's the rules.

Do I have to like it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

I think the NFHS kicked this interpretation. Only the offensive situation made it into the case book (9.9.1 Sit D) but the NFHS posted the same situation only it is B2 doing the jumping and called it a violation (see situations 6 and 7 from this link: http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx ).

The whole interpretation ignores 9-9-3 (those funny words "team not in control").

There was a pretty serious discussion here last year (maybe the year before) about this very play. Some considered the parenthetical examples (a defensive player, or duing a jump ball or throwin) were meant to be all-inclusive or mere expamples of times when a team would not be in control.

This is a crucial distinction, as it determines whether this play is a violation after the throwin is tipped, after the jump ball is touched by a non-jumper, or on a long rebound.

For full disclosure, I thought it was meant to show examples but not be all-inclusive. This year's NFHS interpretation clearly shows I was wrong, and it is meant to be all-inclusive.