Lane Violation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As Camron noted, there's nothing in the original version of that rule that defines what it means to leave the lane space. It could certainly have been inferred, but it wasn't in the rule. Yeah, they clarified their intent by expanding and changing the wording of the rule.

But again, that same link you gave me states 9-1-3g was also a "clarification." IOW, "The FED explanation for 9-1-3g is that it's a clarification of an existing rule."

Either the word doesn't mean what you think it means, or the NFHS isn't exactly consistent with this term.

I think that what I think doesn't matter. The NFHS explicitly stated that it was a freaking clarification of an existing rule. I know that because I posted a FED document that states that. Whether the FED is consistent with the term or not is completely irrelevant. It just is what it is. And what it is is not worth Randalizing imo. The play was always called that way afaik anyway.

Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The play was always called that way anyway.

You're correct. That's the way all of us would have called it in a real game, in real time. But I do remember some discussion, I believe on this Forum, if the "pushup" in the lane, by the book, was, or wasn't, a violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that what I think doesn't matter. The NFHS explicitly stated that it was a freaking clarification of an existing rule. I know that because I posted a FED document that states that. Whether the FED is consistent with the term or not is completely irrelevant. It just is what it is. And what it is is not worth Randalizing imo. The play was always called that way afaik anyway.

Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias.

I'll agree that the rule was always supposed to be the same as it is now, so calling the change a clarification makes sense.

But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple.

OK, Randy.

If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change.

And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

Oh, you're not alone.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

OK, Randy.

If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change.

And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

I appreciate your indulgence, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not referring to the hand in the lane rule, I agree that the rule has always been called that way. I was wrong before.

I'm referring to the change that requires at least one foot to be "near" the lane. They were "clarified" the same year, but one was clearly a change and one was clearly a clarification.