Hand checking

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

JAR,

Your one man crusade against the universally accepted application of the blarge is mind boggling.

OTOH, once some NFHS lurker makes an editorial change to the case book that wipes out the minute crevice of ambiguity where JAR lives, we'll all start calling it the JAR rule, and he'll be famous.

For the NFHS lurker: the editorial change would be to replace "calls" with "calls or gives a preliminary signal for" in the third sentence of 4.19.8 SITUATION C.

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OTOH, once some NFHS lurker makes an editorial change to the case book that wipes out the minute crevice of ambiguity where JAR lives, we'll all start calling it the JAR rule, and he'll be famous.

For the NFHS lurker: the editorial change would be to replace "calls" with "calls or gives a preliminary signal for" in the third sentence of 4.19.8 SITUATION C.

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

Oh, I wasn't prioritizing. I agree completely with you.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

APG:

If you don't notice it you are not doing your job of studying the necessary material to be a competent official.

If you are a competent (and I assume you are because you do care enough to read the stuff that is posted here and to make your opinions known) official you will officiate the game per the requirements of the interpretation. Because if you do not, then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

APG:

If you don't notice it you are not doing your job of studying the necessary material to be a competent official.

If you are a competent (and I assume you are because you do care enough to read the stuff that is posted here and to make your opinions known) official you will officiate the game per the requirements of the interpretation. Because if you do not, then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

MTD, Sr.

Perhaps you didn't get the point I was trying to get across.

If for some reason, NFHS decided to make an editoral change in regards to changing "calling" to "preliminary signal" the general officiating would hardly notice because it's never been an issue for just about anyone.

And I never said I wouldn't officiate the game according to the interpretations given by NFHS and quite frankly I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't. All I said is the NFHS has handed out some silly interpretations recently (backcourt violation anyone) and that I would rather them spend time fixing those than an unnecessary editorial change.