NevadaRef: NFHS 2007-08 Rules Interpretation - Situation 10.
 

NevadaRef:

I answered you post in the NFHS Forum with regard to Situation 10. Any comments?

MTD, Sr.

That Interp has been discussed at length on this forum and roundly criticized as ridiculous and incorrect.

I didn't think that it needed a rehashing over on the NFHS site.

Someone can post a link to one of the threads from last year for you.

Obviously, I don't share your opinion that it is a proper ruling.

Yup. I'll give you the same comment here as I did over there......

99.99% of the officials in the world would not call a violation and would also be correct by rule in not doing so. The only people that would call that a violation is the clown who made that stoopid interpretation and any clown who also thinks that it's legal for a defender to move laterally under an airborne opponent after that opponent has left his feet.

And I won't argue that ruling with any of those clowns either. It's a waste of time.