Great, I have to deal with A-11

[KWH]

BBR-
Very professional response to LDUB's post. Informative, innovative, and thoughtful! You have most certainly earned your position as moderator on the NFHS site based your professionalism and your acute sense of detail.

[BktBallRef]

KWH, you've set such a professional example for all of us. You have certainly earned your spot on the NFHS Rule interpreters Committee, questioning the integrity of fellow officials, name calling and making personal insults throuigh private messages. Yes, you're an outstanding example!

[JugglingReferee]

Well then.

[KWH]

BBR-
1) I have never once claimed to be nor am I a member of the NFHS Rules Interpreters Committee.
2) I have asked "fellow officials" to provide the source of their information when they post an incredibally bold statement.
For example, if Harvey Schmidlap were to state "Offisides is to be enforced in NH in 2008" I might ask Harvey for a copy of the rule reference he was referring to, and/or the memo from his commissioner. I do this to force people to put some credibilty into their posts. Unfortunatly you consider this action quetioning their integrity. That is your opinion, and your opinion only!
3) I did indeed called you an arrogant A$$ in a PM. I did this for the simple reason that I believe you to be an arrogant A$$!

[TXMike]

Now we are letting this ridiculous, unethical BS from California even tear us apart. Maybe those snake oil salesman will come out on top after all

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Now we are letting this ridiculous, unethical BS from California even tear us apart. Maybe those snake oil salesman will come out on top after all

Does this mean the terrorists have already won?

[OverAndBack]

Here's what I don't get: IF the NFHS says something is NOT illegal, how can a state under the aegis of the NFHS (which is not, I presume, a state like Texas, which doesn't use Fed rules) say it IS illegal?

I know certain states can do certain things a different way, some mechanics and procedures vary from state to state, but can the Fed actually say something's kosher and yet states can just say it's illegal? I don't get that.

I do agree with JRut that I think there's a bit of hyperbole in all of this - this seems like a semi-complicated offense that, unless you have the skill position players to run properly and kids with enough brains and attention span to remember how to do everything it requires, you're better off not running it (or at least not running it much).

But I think it's gotten to be like a Bigfoot sighting now. By next week, we'll have heard that 700 high school teams in the Mountain Time Zone alone are running it or considering it, and it'll be 1500 by the week after that. When we're basically just waiting to see what happens when the season actually, you know, starts.

I think I understand the gist of the thing - they're in a scrimmage-kick formation, which gives them the numbering exemption whether they punt or plan to punt or not. What I still don't understand is how more than just the two guys on the end of the line would be eligible receivers (I know backs would be).

And I plan to ask tonight at our local meeting what our state wants us to do about it and what we should look for. Is it as basic as "make sure they have seven on the line" and "watch for ineglibles, and they are players A4, A5 and A6?" I don't know.

I'm not expecting to really see it happen (much, if at all), but I don't want to be the guy with the blank expression on his face if it DOES come up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Here's what I don't get: IF the NFHS says something is NOT illegal, how can a state under the aegis of the NFHS (which is not, I presume, a state like Texas, which doesn't use Fed rules) say it IS illegal?

The NF is not all powerful. If a state wants to make something illegal because they feel it does not fit the mission of their organization, then that is their right. All the NF can do is take them off as a member, but if the NF did that for every interpretation a state gives that does not fit the exact rule language, the most they can do is take away their voting rights. Now that would only matter if a state cared. Clearly Texas is an example of a state that does not care.

The best example that I can think of was in basketball last year. There was a new rule having to deal with uniforms that was announced years in advance. The IHSA said they were not going to enforce the penalty portion of the rule and that all violations of the new rule should be reported to the IHSA with a Special Report Form (for those not in Illinois, these forms are used for ejections). This was clearly in violation of the NF Rule. As far as I know the NF considers the IHSA to be in 100% compliance or membership with the NF. This is just the example I know, there are many more across the country.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KWH

3) I did indeed called you an arrogant A$$ in a PM. I did for the simple reason that I believe you to be an arrogant A$$!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say BktBallRef doesn't care. Whether that makes him an arrogant A$$ or a discerning reader, I don't know. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

[KWH]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say BktBallRef doesn't care. Whether that makes him an arrogant A$$ or a discerning reader, I don't know. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

Your assesment of BBR is correct.
He has not responded as of yet as he is desperatly searching archive after archive of my old posts in a desperate (yet futile) to attempt to prove me a liar.

How goes the search BBR??? Keep digging!!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KWH

Your assesment of BBR is correct.
He has not responded as of yet as he is desperatly searching archive after archive of my old posts in a desperate (yet futile) to attempt to prove me a liar.

How goes the search BBR??? Keep digging!!!

You must have mis-read me. He hasn't responded to your juvenile rant simply because he doesn't give a sh!t what you think.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You must have mis-read me. He hasn't responded to your juvenile rant simply because he doesn't give a sh!t what you think.

A man wtih his thumb on the heartbeat of this forum!