What does the NFHS Official's Manual (which I get every other year when published) have to do with you misrepresenting the facts of a particular case in Texas? At what point do you say, "Yes, I was incorrect in my statement."
You consistently use this one paragraph to justify making up your own rules and interpretations, and it has caused your opinions and posts to be regularly ridiculed by those that actually understand the rules.
Yes, having "football sense" will sometimes get you to the right place, but you can't know when and how to apply the rules unless you actually know them first.
I'm pleased you receive the NFHS FOOTBALL Official's Manual, AB, may I suggest you take a look at the first several pages and reflect on what they suggest. I have never been quite able to comprehend the obsession some coaches have with dwelling on the insignificant, irrelevant and immaterial side issues related to areas of discussion, but have learned to deal with it best, by simply ignoring it.
I wasn't "incorrect in my statement" as the incident referenced is absolutely germain to the significance and importance of enforcing the revised sideline protocols, which was the salient point of my posting. The detail you seem so concerned about is totally immaterial, and is worthy of treatment as such.
Strangely, your lack of detail, in your assessment, "it has caused your opinions and posts to be regularly ridiculed by those that actually understand the rules." begs some question. Initially, what opinions and posts are you referring to, and even more importantly who determined that anyone who may have disagreed with some offerings in reality are, "those that actually understand the rules".
Without your including specifics, my recollection points to the recent discussions related to
the assinine interpretation that a player who rendered himself OOB could somehow magically retain his inbounds status by simply jumping into the air although remaining outside the field of play. As you may recall, my suggestion was, and continues to be, that this "interpretation" was stupid and remains stupid and was contrary to the basic premis the game is based on. I have more respect for the game, and those who labor to write rules, than to accept an obvious unfortunate choice of words as an excuse to embarrass the game by allowing an unnecessary travesty to taint the game's credibility.
Although given an option, I personally would prefer simply considering the player to be OOB once having touched OOB and any subsequent touching of a live ball to render that ball "dead", but am comfortable with the rule maker's revision assessing an Illegal Participation against the player, thus eliminating the advantage such action could provide. Eliminating the advantage by simply declaring the ball dead, seems simpler than expanding a serious penalty, but more importantly the current revision confirms my judgment that allowing a ball, so touched, to remain alive was STUPID and contrary to the intent of this game.
As you may recall, AB, I suggested I could not (and will not) accept some new interpretation, that cannot be rationally explained and/or justified, and despite numerous requests for a rational explanation or justification to support this blatantly silly notion, NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE WAS OFFERED. As repeatedly stated, I was NOT making my own rule, I was simply rejecting an interpretation (an opinion) that could not be explained or justified, a judgment the current revision vindicates.
As for "Rules knowledge" I agree that is absolutely imperative to this "thing we do", but secondary to the learned ability to understand how apply that rules knowledge impartially, fairly, intelligently and as they were intended, are to be best applied. Having studied and practiced these rules for over 4 decades I've learned that the more I comprehend these rules, the more I realize I have yet to learn, and that effort remains ongoing. As, "Knowledge has no value until it's used or shared", football rules only become useful when applied correctly.
Perhaps a regional deficiency, but I have yet to meet anyone, on either side of a sideline, who professes to know everything about these rules, who is anyway near as proficient, or as effective, as they think they are. That search, also, remains ongoing.
