Lane Violation?

[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.