When Does A Casebook Interpretation Not Become A Casebook Interpretation ???
 

The "ago old question". What if it were a casebook interpretation from the 1992-93 NFHS casebook, that was later dropped, with no apparent rule change, and no apparent reason, or explanation, for the dropped casebook play, other than, maybe, to save space? Would that be an appropriate citation? And, if so, how do rookie officials become aware of that casebook interpretation?

I found this in the current casebook. Why would you use the case book from 20 years ago? The current edition is what we should use.

When it isn't in the current casebook.

I'm Going Through Tryptophan Withdrawal, Cold Turkey ...
 

Sorry guys. I really wanted this to be just an ordinary a post, not an entire new thread. I just realized that one cannot delete a new thread from the Forum. Well, at least it adds to my post count, which brings me one more post closer to me becoming an esteemed Forum member.

I'm the one who created a new thread from this post Billy, since it was completely off topic from the original thread.
If you still want the thread tossed, I'll send it back to the pit from whence I pulled it.

Just My Opinion ...
 

Yes. Otherwise, why do we have these:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post546070

And we sometimes use these as citations to confirm our interpretations, because, otherwise, there are no interpretations that can do justice to some "weird" situations. Some of us will also use old NFHS, or, in my case, old IAABO, Refresher Exam questions, and answers, to confirm some interpretations that cannot be confirmed in any other manner.

Again, we get to the "age old question", how are rookies made aware of these "old", but still "in play" interpretations?

Discuss among yourselves.

Mentors.