johnnyg08 Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 Two new and very significant case plays in this year's NFHS Case Book regarding FPSR. This was a long time coming. Omission of the word "not" is highlighted & boxed. It should read "chooses NOT to slide" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richvee Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 Good job by FED differentiating between a runner 45 feet away and a runner not sliding right at the bag. Too bad the proof readers missed the fact that they left out the word NOT in 8.4.2(y) 🙃 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted February 29 Author Report Share Posted February 29 16 minutes ago, Richvee said: Good job by FED differentiating between a runner 45 feet way and a runner not sliding right at the bag. Too bad the proof readers missed the fact that they left out the word NOT in 8.4.2(y) 🙃 Force me to buy a new CB in 2025! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richvee Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 8 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: Force me to buy a new CB in 2025! Our association actually gave us hard copies this year. Which is good, because the new FED app for the e books is horrible, and I can’t figure out where to find the ‘24 casebook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimurray Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 24 minutes ago, Richvee said: Our association actually gave us hard copies this year. Which is good, because the new FED app for the e books is horrible, and I can’t figure out where to find the ‘24 casebook. Off Topic. NFHS All Access incredibly confusing to have the app on phone but have to buy the book on computer. Took me awhile to figure out how to buy pub which then becomes available in App. Pubs seem OK but you have to use your computer intuition to navigate or search. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted February 29 Author Report Share Posted February 29 7 hours ago, Richvee said: Our association actually gave us hard copies this year. Which is good, because the new FED app for the e books is horrible, and I can’t figure out where to find the ‘24 casebook. Agree. NFHS All Access is a bit confusing...I like that I can view it from my laptop again for things like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderheads Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Two new and very significant case plays in this year's NFHS Case Book regarding FPSR. This was a long time coming. Omission of the word "not" is highlighted & boxed. It should read "chooses NOT to slide" So, John ..... are you saying that this "situation Y" from the 2024 casebook is a NEW COMMENT in the "RULING" area clarifying that a runner must veer away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted February 29 Author Report Share Posted February 29 26 minutes ago, Thunderheads said: So, John ..... are you saying that this "situation Y" from the 2024 casebook is a NEW COMMENT in the "RULING" area clarifying that a runner must veer away? These are new Case Plays for 2024. They were not in the 2023 Case Book. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderheads Posted February 29 Report Share Posted February 29 18 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: These are new Case Plays for 2024. They were not in the 2023 Case Book. Ok, great then! I mean, we discussed this at length last year about how the NCAA had the proper verbiage within their rule and that FED needed to do the same. At least there's clarification within the case plays now 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted February 29 Author Report Share Posted February 29 4 hours ago, Thunderheads said: Ok, great then! I mean, we discussed this at length last year about how the NCAA had the proper verbiage within their rule and that FED needed to do the same. At least there's clarification within the case plays now For sure. These case plays are significant enhancements to the enforcement of this rule. It's much, much clearer. Slide legally or get out of the way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 21 hours ago, Richvee said: Good job by FED differentiating between a runner 45 feet away and a runner not sliding right at the bag. Too bad the proof readers missed the fact that they left out the word NOT in 8.4.2(y) 🙃 Good job FED for clearing this up. Bad job to the umpires who were so bad at this that it had to be cleared up. Just saying. A little common sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said: Good job FED for clearing this up. Bad job to the umpires who were so bad at this that it had to be cleared up. Just saying. A little common sense. Yes & Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted March 5 Author Report Share Posted March 5 FWIW, I reached out to the NFHS and I heard back confirming that the word "not" was an accidental omission. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderheads Posted March 5 Report Share Posted March 5 5 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: FWIW, I reached out to the NFHS and I heard back confirming that the word "not" was an accidental omission. Great, then it's all what we thought!!! Thanks John! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted April 8 Author Report Share Posted April 8 Here's a photo I saw online Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimurray Posted April 8 Report Share Posted April 8 13 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Here's a photo I saw online We had a discussion here about whether you had to slide in OBR/MLB. I'm of the opinion that a retired runner can continue to run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 . . . and the act of continuing to run, in and of itself, is not interference. It is also NOT not interference. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted April 9 Author Report Share Posted April 9 20 hours ago, Jimurray said: We had a discussion here about whether you had to slide in OBR/MLB. I'm of the opinion that a retired runner can continue to run. They sure can. But the reason I posted this is because this is what the violation will often look like in NFHS. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richvee Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: They sure can. But the reason I posted this is because this is what the violation will often look like in NFHS. And NCAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted April 11 Author Report Share Posted April 11 On 4/9/2024 at 11:05 AM, Richvee said: And NCAA Yes. Also true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted April 24 Author Report Share Posted April 24 Slide or Veer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax Posted Wednesday at 08:37 PM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 08:37 PM On 2/28/2024 at 10:12 PM, johnnyg08 said: Force me to buy a new CB in 2025! Breaker, breaker, Johnny Snowman ⛄️. Are ya there, good buddy? On 3/5/2024 at 6:38 AM, johnnyg08 said: I reached out to the NFHS and I heard back confirming that the word "not" was an accidental omission. Oh sure… why can’t they “accidentally omit” the “shirt shall be navy” line/clause, huh?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted Thursday at 01:46 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 01:46 AM 2 hours ago, MadMax said: Oh sure… why can’t they “accidentally omit” the “shirt shall be navy” line/clause, huh?? “Hey, noob! That shirt looks black!” ”Nah, man. My interpretation is that this is pro-navy in color and style.” Need to take this back to @DerekGDS … why do we need the red? How about navy with grey side panels? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekGDS Posted Thursday at 07:00 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 07:00 AM 5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said: “Hey, noob! That shirt looks black!” ”Nah, man. My interpretation is that this is pro-navy in color and style.” Need to take this back to @DerekGDS … why do we need the red? How about navy with grey side panels? I could do Navy so dark it almost looks black with charcoal side panels. Wouldn't take much to tweak that 😀 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.