[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

We had a discussion about this exact phrase last year when training some of the newer guys because they misread the phrase just as JR. But hey, he's not a rookie! What gives?
[/B]

Would you care to enlighten me as to how the note In R6-3-3 would then apply to article R6-3-3(c) if it's meant to apply to the whole section? Please cite an instance where you can have a FT violation before the AP arrow is set.Feel free to use all the officials in Nevada,if you like,when you try to come up with one.Maybe you can also tell me if the placement of that note afer article 6-3-3(f) means that it doesn't apply to articles R6-3-3g&h,but just the preceding articles.

I await your training. [/B][/QUOTE]

While we seem to agreed on what the proper call is and who to have jump, we disagree on why. There are two separate points being made now. The first is that the wording of the note is confusing. When I wrote that JR has misread this note, it is the wording problem to which I was referring. The note should say, "...the two players involved and take place in the center restraining circle." This would make it much clearer that the phrase in the center restraining cirlce is not modifying the players, but giving clarification as to the location to be used.

The second issue is whether or not 6-3-3 applies at all in these situations or if the casebook play has somehow overriden it. JR believes it does not apply and the casebook play has somehow replaced it in these particular instances. I believe that 6-3-3 with its note and the casebook play are consistent with each other. You must understand that the note is actually an exception, and it would be better if it were labelled as such, but the editors of the NFHS rules book have never done a good job, so why should we expect them to have in this case? If you understand the syntax of the note to mean what I wrote above, then it says to do exactly what is spelled out in the casebook play. So they match up.
Now to answer JR's argument about part c. It is really a question of logic. The note (which should be called an exception) has the logical form: If X, then Y. This means that if we do not have X, then we don't do Y. So it may well be impossible for there to be a simultaneous free throw violation when the AP procedure has not yet been established (I certainly can't think of such a case), but this doesn't mean that the note doesn't apply. In fact, it does apply, but simply the "if X condition" hasn't been met, so we don't do the Y part. So, if during a game, we have a simultaneous free throw violation, we have an established AP, and the note only talks about situations when we don't. Therefore, there is no conflict and we just follow 6-3-3 as normal.
Lastly, as for its placement before g and h, just blame the silly editors again. It certainly does apply to g and h, too.