View Single Post
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 01, 2021, 12:58pm
BillyMac BillyMac is offline
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,396
Unannounced ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Did the NFHS slip one past me? Did it alter 9-2-10 Note and not announce it?
The NFHS has to get up pretty early in the morning to slip one past Nevadaref.

"9-2-10 Note: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass" first appeared in this form in 2010-11.

Previous to 2010-11 (at least back to 1996-97, the oldest rulebook in my library) it simply stated: "The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass".

I believe that additional rule language was unannounced in 2010-11. Typical for the NFHS. Stupid NFHS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
Additionally, we have this bogus NFHS interpretation for throw-ins from about the same time as the use change being discussed. From the 2009-10 NFHS Interpretation: SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)
Nevadaref probably had a valid gripe (still, doesn't one think that "bogus" is a little over the top) before the additional wording was added (unannounced) in 2010-11.

Odd that the annual (2009-10) interpretation (later a caseplay) came before the rule language addition (2010-11)?

Maybe it was a subsequent response by the NFHS to complaints by officials (like Nevadaref) about the annual interpretation?

If it was a subsequent response to complaints, shouldn't the year-later rule language addition been announced?

Stupid NFHS.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Aug 01, 2021 at 02:32pm.
Reply With Quote