Dunk in pregame

[Rich]

We may simply not care.

As for case plays not in the current case book, I'm not one to care much about those either. If they were important, they'd be in the book or written into the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SC Official]

Heck, just this year the FED doubled down on a ridiculous interpretation of the backcourt rule that they first put out in 07-08. Putting it out twice doesn't make it any more correct by rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Heck, just this year the FED doubled down on a ridiculous interpretation of the backcourt rule that they first put out in 07-08. Putting it out twice doesn't make it any more correct by rule.

Third time's the charm.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Heck, just this year the FED doubled down on a ridiculous interpretation of the backcourt rule that they first put out in 07-08. Putting it out twice doesn't make it any more correct by rule.

At least it is in their current and updated literature. And that situation is so rare that I doubt I would even need to call it the way they suggest it should be called.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

We may simply not care.

As for case plays not in the current case book, I'm not one to care much about those either. If they were important, they'd be in the book or written into the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Pretty much. Unless my state takes up the cause to advocate such an interpretation, I will just act like it was never there. Too many things are going on and I have to worry about something I can only find in some old book or interpretation most people might not even see.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

We may simply not care.

As for case plays not in the current case book, I'm not one to care much about those either. If they were important, they'd be in the book or written into the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

While they may not be important, that doesn't make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make the opposite true. If the opposite were true, don't you think there would have been a case somewhere along the lines to express the change in the ruling?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While they may not be important, that doesn't make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make the opposite true. If the opposite were true, don't you think there would have been a case somewhere along the lines to express the change in the ruling?

It has nothing to do with being wrong. It has to do with the information you can verify. If you have a standard and you do not bother to put on any current literature we have or you cannot put in in a place that anyone can easily review, then you are undermining that position. If I have to go back in a 5-year-old rulebook that I might not even have in my possession anymore, then we have a problem. I just moved recently and I had some old rulebooks I have not seen in years. I did not go back in them to verify old interpretations that might still be there. If they complain that officials are not applying rules and interpretations, then you cannot take away known interpretations that you still want to hold onto and not put them in your current literature. Not everyone reads this site.

Peace

[so cal lurker]

In the legal world, we often talk about controlling authority and persuasive authority. A court is bound by controlling authority (e.g., a US Supreme Court ruling on an issue of federal law). A court will carefully consider persuasive authority (e.g., a California Court will consider the logic behind a New York court ruling, but is not obligated to follow it).

It seems to me that no-longer-published cases are a form of persuasive authority: as we don't know why they left he book or what may have changed in the interim, they should not be slavishly followed; but since they were controlling at one point, they should be carefully considered before reaching a contrary conclusion.

YMMV.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... you do not bother to put on any current literature we have ... go back in a 5-year-old rulebook that I might not even have in my possession anymore ...

The "swinging elbows/excessive/nonexcessive/contact above the shoulders/intentional/flagrant/foul" Point of Emphasis from 2012-13 disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. Did veteran officials who were around 2012-13 not follow that interpretation in the intervening years before said Point of Emphasis was resurrected in 2017-18, despite the fact that the interpretation wasn't in the "current literature" during those intervening years ?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... then we have a problem.

Agree here: How does the NFHS expect rookie officials to make the correct interpretation regarding that situation during those intervening years.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The "swinging elbows/excessive/nonexcessive/contact above the shoulders/intentional/flagrant/foul" Point of Emphasis from 2012-13 disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. Did veteran officials who were around 2012-13 not follow that interpretation in the intervening years before said Point of Emphasis was resurrected in 2017-18, despite the fact that the interpretation wasn't in the "current literature" during those intervening years ?



Agree here: How does the NFHS expect rookie officials to make the correct interpretation regarding that situation during those intervening years.

Have them ask me, !

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It has nothing to do with being wrong. It has to do with the information you can verify.

Peace

If you're only going to call what has a current explicit case play, you're missing a lot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you're only going to call what has a current explicit case play, you're missing a lot.

I did not say only call what is in the current casebook. I said that you if you want to have officials know your case plays and up to date interpretations, then you better have it somewhere to support that information. And most of the things we are talking about often are not even common situations. That does not help a newer official that was not around when the interpretation was put into place and had no idea such interpretation or case play existed or a coach that might actually read what is in the book.

Peace