Didn't realize you still worked a lot of HS games. Most of the stuff you posted here referenced NCAA-M interps. So the "seriously" comment was warranted.
And I didn't change anything. But you keep getting your panties in a wad if you want to.

This a HS discussion, right? Again, not my fault what assumptions you decide to make. I never brought a NCAA-Men's interpretation into the discussion.

Only folks flipping out are people like you who insist all interpretations of a rule should be based on your context only. But I can be a jerk also, if need be. It's really not that hard has evidence by you.

I kind of agree with BNR here. The NCAA M/W rule is irrelevant to this discussion. The NFHS rule is different than those 2. The only time it would be relevant is in those states that choose to apply the NCAA rule as an interpretation.

The NFHS rule clearly doesn't say any time or distance should be accounted for. Now reasonable minds can agree/disagree about this, however as it was stated earlier the rep from Referee Magazine has said that time and distance is irrelevant.

I am not a NASO Member currently, what was said in Referee Magazine?

I did see some comments where Mrs. Wynn addressed some quick questions, but I do not recall this specific issue being addressed. Or was this someone else's comments that I am not aware of at this time?

Peace

Other than you being upset by me asking the question "Seriously?", exactly when was I a jerk to you? I asked you to give me a time and distance limitation...you got your feelings hurt by that?

I am going to suspect that no one here is upset or hurt by your comments. I think the fact is that you did not read the comments that started this conversation about this issue of time and distance between touches. You went after me saying I was creating a personal issue/interpretation that was previously discussed by others using a level that many of us here do not work or know about. Then you dismissed a point of view as if it was silly and when asked a question in return, you blow it off with "seriously?"

Right or wrong, this is a healthy discussion and should be treated as such. This is why I asked my higher ups what they thought and did they feel the NCAAW's interpretation should apply to the high school game in my state. But what tends to be sad sometimes is that people cannot separate their personal feelings towards people to have a serious discussion about facts that were mentioned in the actual topic. Rather they would like to assume someone is ignoring a rule because it does not fit their position that was never addressed by the main governing body.

Peace

The problem is that the NF rule and the NCAA-W rule is NOT different. Other than the order of the 4 points (a,b,c,and d) they are the same wording.

Rich already mentioned this.

Agree with this 100%. Instead of our judgement deciding if the 4 absolutes affected RSBQ, the NFHS has decided that the 4 absolutes affect RSBQ no matter what.

The fundamental point behind these changes is that all of the rules making bodies are trying get defenders to not defend ball handlers (defined differently by each organization) using their hands.

After years of not being successful in getting officials at all levels to apply proper judgement on these calls, they have decided to take judgement out of these situations entirely and make them absolutes.

Anyone that tries to add judgement back into these four situations to justify not making a call is going against the principles the rules making bodies are trying to establish.

Now, if your entire state/organization decides they want to do it another way, fine, but it still is what it is....a deviation from the actual rules. If you apply judgement to any of the 4 absolutes, you are outside of the rules. They are not supposed to be judgement calls.

If this is the reasoning behind the wording concerning the two touches part of the rule, than they have based this part of the rule on something that is unequivocally false.

As is obvious from my earlier posts, I think the wording of the NCAA-M rule is much better on this particular point. That being said, I have no problem calling things I don't necessarily agree with. Luckily for me, JRut, and quite possibly BNR, our states and/or assignment chairs do not seem to want the rule called as written. Since the NFHS has nothing to do with any assignments I receive, and my main HS assignor is the head clinician for my state as well as one of my college assignors, I will continue to enforce the way I have the last few seasons using NCAA-M interpretation.

You should also suspect that I am not upset or hurt by anything here either...and I am not the one that called anyone names. Not my problem if BNR can't handle having a conversation.

I have no personal issues with either BNR or you...but it has been pointed out that the NF and NCAA-W rules are the same, and still people say "Nope, not gonna call it that way cause I'm going to use (fill in whatever you want to here)"...

Hmmmmmm. The same wording? Really?
 

NCAAM 10-1-4:

NCAAW 10-1-4:

NF 10-6-12 says:

Not sure how all of these are the same. Looks like different wording to me. :rolleyes:

Peace

They are not the same. I just posted all the rules from the 3 codes and they are actually different. Are they referencing similar actions? Yes they are. But NCAA Men's has a different take on their situation, so I am not so sure why NCAA Women's interpretations is something the NF must adopt or they agree with that interpretation on this one play we are discussing that is not referenced in the casebook?

Again, if the National Federation wants to take on the interpretation directly from NCAA Women's, that is their right to do so. But they have not mentioned this in their literature as far as I can tell and it appears that only NCAA Women's officials here are making this case that the NF shares their philosophy. I do not assume that all of a sudden the NF took on the NCAA Men's point of view or interpretation on this situation. Heck I was surprised when the NF and the IHSA even mentioned RSBQ in the first place last year. I see three codes that cover the same actions in their own language. And to assume that only one is special to the NF is just not accurate.

Peace

Why did you add the NCAA-M rule again? The NF rule and the NCAA-W are the same. But you got me...I said the "wording" was the same when I should have said the rules were the same. Good on you.