Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
2. It used to be a T for leaving for an unauthorized reason, but now it seems that we have to wait until the player returns before we can talk about a technical foul.
|
No, it didn't "used to be a T for leaving ...". The T has always been for returning. Case 10.3.3C (last year's reference) has been in the book for many years.
|
Bob, I know that the CASE BOOK gives returning as the reason for the T, but I don't agree with that. The RULES BOOK does not say, nor has it in the past said, that returning to the floor during playing action is a player technical foul. If the player in case play 10.3.3C never made an effort to return, there was rules support for it being a T anyway under the old wording due to the leaving. This new wording has created a problem regarding that.
Someone in the NFHS office simply wrote something that was not quite right in that case book play a few years ago.
As all of us here know, just because the NFHS says something doesn't mean that they are correct. See the LGP "clarification" a couple of years ago. MTD also contends, and probably rightly so, that the case book play which uses the wording "double violation" is incorrect as it should say "simultaneous violation." There are other examples too.
I make an effort to be precise. The NFHS often does not.