Is this right ?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

When calling NFHS, I follow the approved ruling. Speaking academically, I believe the approved casebook ruling contradicts the written rule, for the reasons I have given.

Steve,

Isn't the case book just as binding as the rule book? I don't have mine with me, but I believe it has some wording that says as much. I believe the case book is designed to further illustrate the intent of the rules. As you know, sometimes the intent is lost in the wording of the rule. That's why we use case book plays to back up our arguments from time to time.

I know about 3 years ago ASA changed the wording of the rule regarding D3K because the wording didn't reflect the correct interpretation. They didn't change the rule, just how it was written. If you followed it to the letter, there were situations in which the batter could not run to first base even though the intent was to allow it and as umpires we enforced the intent not the letter of the rule. I believe there were even case plays that corrected the written word and provided the correct interpretation.

So when someone interprets a rule one way based on the wording and the case book play contradicts that interpretation, which takes precedence?