New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
That still doesn't mean newer officials can't properly adjudicate the play based on published rules, which is what you were claiming up thread.

No, it was other Forum members who were claiming such in the past, possibly some who may no longer be active Forum members.

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
No, it was other Forum members who were claiming such in the past, possibly some who may no longer be active Forum members.

What other forum members? It is the same 5 of us talking over and over again. People have gone to other places to discuss things partially because we get off on the rails about things that have nothing to do with the original conversation. This is a great example of that fact.

Peace

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
What other forum members?

While I don't remember them by name, I do remember their rationale for ignoring the interpretation of this one and done casebook play.

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
While I don't remember them by name, I do remember their rationale for ignoring the interpretation of this one and done casebook play.

Why are you speaking for them? You're the one who said that new officials wouldn't be able to figure out how to rule such a play. You posted the three rules that give all the guidance needed. You are the only one in this thread who posted anything about newcomers not being able to figure it out based on the current rules published.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

SNIPERBBB

I wouldnt worry about this until next year...

I'm still hoping they actually codify the neck/head contact with a swinging elbow one of these decades.

JRutledge

SNIPERBBB wrote
I wouldnt worry about this until next year...

I'm still hoping they actually codify the neck/head contact with a swinging elbow one of these decades.

I think they did that already. Saying that contact above the shoulders was not automatically anything. You could judge it as something intentional or flagrant, but not a requirement if contact takes place. Case book 9.13.1 and 9.13.2 covers this to some extent.

Peace

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
While I don't remember them by name, I do remember their rationale for ignoring the interpretation of this one and done casebook play.

Let them speak for themselves. They are not bothering us with this silliness. If they have an issue then they can ask. For one new people do not know the difference unless someone points out to them the difference. I did not know the rules before me that well and never worried about them. I only worried about the application of the rule that was in front of me. Stop trying to speak for people that are not raising an issue. Trust me, there are plenty of people who speak on issues they do not understand. These are not children.

Peace

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
Let them speak for themselves.

...

BillyMac wrote
... possibly some who may no longer be active Forum members.

BillyMac

Seems like only yesterday.

SNIPERBBB wrote
I'm still hoping they actually codify the neck/head contact with a swinging elbow one of these decades.

I think that the NFHS considers it codified with the three relevant caseplays.

JRutledge wrote
I think they did that already.

Agree.

JRutledge wrote
Case book 9.13.1 and 9.13.2 covers this to some extent.

Contact Above Shoulders

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis
Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.
a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

BillyMac

SNIPERBBB wrote
I wouldnt worry about this until next year...

I would love to see this in the body of the casebook next year:

BillyMac wrote
2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 5: An official administers a throw-in to Team A, when the throw-in should have been given to Team B. A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and B2 knocks the ball loose. While the ball is loose, the official recognizes their mistake, whistles and awards the ball to Team B for a throw-in from the same spot. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: A loose ball does not change the status of the ball as it is still in Team A’s control. The mistake can be corrected until the status of the ball changes. The clock should be reset to the time remaining when the throw-in was made by Team A. (7-6-6)

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
You're the one who said that new officials wouldn't be able to figure out how to rule such a play.

Never said it myself, just paraphrasing the rationale of others who had chosen to ignore the interpretation of the caseplay (and ruling differently) after its one and done appearance in the casebook despite no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes after the citation vanished.

Raymond

BillyMac wrote
Never said it myself, just paraphrasing the rationale of others who had chosen to ignore the interpretation of the caseplay (and ruling differently) after its one and done appearance in the casebook despite no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes after the citation vanished.

You said the rules as written wouldn't allow new officials to interpret the "body on the floor" play. You didn't quote somebody else. Why do you keep on bringing up this case play that disappeared? We have rules that cover the play. Why can't people properly interpret that play based on the rules written? Why do you constantly and incessantly bring up this case play that disappeared and ignore the three rules that are in the rule book?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

BillyMac

Raymond wrote
You said the rules as written wouldn't allow no officials to interpret the "body on the floor" play.

Never said that, or believed that, myself, just paraphrasing (mimicking, sometimes sarcastically, or as a parody) past Forum members who had chosen to ignore the interpretation of the caseplay (and ruling differently in games) after its one and done appearance (using the "done" part as a rationale for their warped interpretation) in the casebook despite no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes after the citation vanished.

BillyMac wrote
The only way that young'uns can learn this specific “being tripped is not the same as tripping” interpretation is through the tradition of old, grizzled officials sitting around a blazing campfire with young'uns and telling oral stories.

BillyMac wrote
"How can an almost twenty year old case play that only appeared for a single year in the casebook and is no longer in the casebook be relevant to officials who have been officiating less than twenty years?".

"How many interpreters/trainers bring up this casebook play as a part of rookie instruction?".

"How can such an official explain this situation to a coach without the benefit of pointing it out in a casebook?".

"Sorry coach, I can't show you the play in the casebook but just go on the internet to the Official Basketball Forum and search for 2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 10.6.1 Situation E".

"Well, some anonymous official ... who goes by the username BillyMac, from a little corner of Connecticut ..., in an internet chat room says ..."

Over the years, my response to all of the posted opinions to ignore the casebook interpretation has always been consistently the same:

BillyMac wrote
While the caseplay may have vanished, the rules behind it are still in the rule book and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate it.

« Previous Page