Did I mess this one up?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

You know, it is what it is, I don't believe I'm making anything up here. the casebook might not support me, but the rulebook does (consistency, huh). Nowhere does it state that a player has violated on this type of play. He must be out of bounds to establish, by definition, a throw-in, which he does not do here, therefore no provisions have been met nor have they been violated.

I don't want any part of the previous discussion, but I did feel compelled to respond to this statement (for some reason).

The Casebook is an extension of the Rules Book. We all know that while, for the most part, the Rules Book is pretty clear when read in depth, there are some situations - or cases - where it is not 100% clear how a rule should be applied. The Casebook is the way the NFHS clarifies those situations.

It carries the same weight as the Rules Book, and is the official interpretation of the rules. To say that the Rules Book backs you up while the Casebook does not is reading more into the Rules Book than is there.

The analogy posted above by Mark is a good one - case law decided by the Supreme Court is law. You may even disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on any number of issues, but it doesn't change the fact that it is now enforceable law. You can petition the court - or in our case the NFHS - to change it's rulings, but until they do, we are all required to abide by the law as citizens/players and enforce the law as police officers/officials.

This is either arguement for arguement's sake, which is unfortunate, or a stubborn misunderstanding of what the Casebook actually is.

PS. By the way, I say this not as someone who is always correct - I've been wrong on my share of Rules, and others have corrected me here. That's why I'm here. I'm in my second year of serious officiating and have a lot to learn. But, one thing I do know is that when a clear Rules citation or Casebook citation is given, that's the end of the arguement.