On The Floor Is The Appropriate Description Here ...

[Adam]

This seems like a local interpreter's opinion rather than an official IAABO statement.. Seems to me if they thought the interpretation was wrong, the would have said so when they removed it.

And his reliance on LGP for a stationary player doesn't speak inspire confidence in his opinion.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This seems like a local interpreter's opinion rather than an official IAABO statement. Seems to me if they thought the interpretation was wrong, the would have said so when they removed it.
And his reliance on LGP for a stationary player doesn't speak inspire confidence in his opinion.

Remember, this is IAABO, not the NFHS, so be careful using the pronoun, "they". The NFHS removed it, not IAABO.

This is not my local interpreter's opinion, it's the opinion of the IAABO "International" office. He went all the way up the ladder to the top. I would love to get an opinion from someone in authority at the NFHS.

If I'm going to charge a foul on this play, and I guess that I'm going to have to from now on because Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state, then I'm going with 10-6-1 rather than 4-23-1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Remember, this is IAABO, not the NFHS.

This is not my local interpreter's opinion, it's the opinion of the IAABO "International" office. He went all the way up the ladder to the top. I would love to get an opinion from someone in authority at the NFHS.

If I'm going to charge a foul on this play, and I guess that I'm going to have to from now on because Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state, then I'm going with 10-6-1 rather than 4-23-1.

Fortunately, we don't have to give a rule reference when reporting fouls. When I get this word through my local IAABO association, I'll call it that way. In the meantime, the reasoning given for this ruling doesn't make any sense.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Fortunately, we don't have to give a rule reference when reporting fouls. When I get this word through my local IAABO association, I'll call it that way. In the meantime, the reasoning given for this ruling doesn't make any sense.

I would love to get your local interpreter's opinion on this, especially regarding why the caseplay disappeared in 2005. In any case, don't hold your breath waiting from word from you local association without an an inquiry. If IAABO hasn't commented since 2005, they won't comment now, without a question from a member, as I did, this past week.

Again, I would love to hear from the NFHS regarding this play. Maybe Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. can get in touch with one of his "contacts" at the NFHS and can get us an opinion. Where is he? He's always underfoot, and getting in the way, until you need him.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Again, I would love to hear from the NFHS regarding this play.

Better would be a general statement either that "case plays remain in effect until a contrary ruling come sout, even of the play is removed from the books: or "case plays become null and void once they are removed from the book."

Of course, we've been asking this question since about the time Al Gore invented the interwebs.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Better would be a general statement either that "case plays remain in effect until a contrary ruling come sout, even of the play is removed from the books: or "case plays become null and void once they are removed from the book."

Of course, we've been asking this question since about the time Al Gore invented the interwebs.

But even if a case play were to become null and void when removed, it wouldn't give any indication as to the desired ruling....imagine the arguments about what it really means when trying to interpret a blank page.