Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!
I get to correct JR and MTD in the same thread!
RM got this one right.
Here is the play ruling which Bob Jenkins mentioned:
2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 2: Post players A5 and B5 are called for a double personal foul while the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 in A's backcourt to A2 in A's frontcourt. RULING: Team A had control of the ball when the double foul occurred, and thus play will be resumed at the point of interruption. Team A will have a designated spot throw-in in A's backcourt nearest to where A1 was last in contact with the ball. (4-4-3; 4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-9)
LESSON: ALWAYS LISTEN TO BOB! 
|
First, I admit that I should have caught the mistake in the ruling of 2006-07 NFHS Basketball Interpretation 2. This would not be the first time that the NFHS Rules Committee has made a ruling that could not be supported by rule. Approximately four (4) or five (5) years ago the NFHS Rules Committee published a play in its supplemental intepretations and gave an incorrect ruling, even referenced rules that did not apply to the situation. The only problem with this was the fact that the same had been a Casebook play that had been published years earlier and it had the correct ruling and referenced the applicable rules. It took three emails by me to Mary Struckhoff before she would admit that the NFHS ruling in its supplemental interpretations was incorrect and published a correction.
The problem is two fold: (1) Too many members of the Rules Committee are not real experts in the rules. And (2), nobody bothers to check if there is an existing Casebook Play.
Now lets get back to the 2006-07 NFHS Rules Interpretation shall we:
Many of you know that I study the history of the rules and their evolution. Furthermore, many of you know that I believe that we as officials (lawyers and trial judges) and interpreters (appellate and supreme court judges) must treat the rules and casebook plays and approved rulings as laws and precedents respectively.
The U.S., Canada, Australia, and other members of the former British Empire base their laws and rulings on English common law. The NFHS and the NCAA use the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada as it rules foundation; in fact, the NFHS and NCAA officially recognize the NBCUSC as their official predecessor.
The NBCUSC wrote the rules for NFHS and NCAA up to and including the 1977-78 or 1978-79 season (I didn’t feel like climbing up into the attic to check my rule books for which season, but I am leaning toward the 1977-78 season). The NFHS and NCAA published their own edition of the rules, casebook, and illustrated rules books, but the books were identical because the rules were written to take into account the length of quarters (high school), halves (college), and overtime periods (both H.S. and college).
The rule we have been discussing is
NFHS R4-S4-A3 which states (and the wording has been virtually unchanged for over 45 years): “
A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.”
Over the years the NCAA as tweaked the wording of
NFHS R4-S4-A3 such that
NCAA R4-S2-A3b states: “
A live ball is in the front court or back court of the team in control as follows: A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the playing court.”
Notice how the NCAA has used the word “
status” in
NCAA R4-S2-A3b. The words “
location” and “
status” mean the same thing in these definitions. The rule (NFHS and NCAA) was meant and still means the back/front court status of the ball: The ball is either in the back court or it is in the front court. It does not mean and has never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) meant the location of the player which the ball touched or was touched by. . In other words the dictionary definition of “
location” was not used by the NBCUSC Rules Committee.
Before Point-of-Interruption (POI), when the penalty for a personal foul required that the ball be put into play with a throw-in, the throw-in was nearest the spot of the foul. With POI the phrase “location of the ball” is used to define where the throw-in, if any, will be made. Here the word “location” is interpreted by its dictionary definition and that means the location of the ball with respect to a boundary line at the time of the Interruption.
NFHS R4-S4-A3 cannot be used to determine the location of a POI throw-in because it does not apply to POI throw-ins.
There is no rule justification of having the POI throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was either touched by a player or touched a player. It has to be the actual location of the ball in relation to a boundary line at the time of the Interruption.
And finally, since I have already shown why R4-S4-A3 does not apply to this play, let us look at the other rule references in the 2006-07 play: R4-36 should read R4-S36-A2a, which states: "Play shall be resumed by a throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the interruption occurred." Just what I have been saying, the throw-in shall be taken from a spot nearest to the location of the ball with regard to its location to a boundary line when the interruption occurred. I do not know why R6-S4-A3g was referenced for this play because it has nothing to do with this play. And there is no such rule as R7-S5-A9.
Therefore NevadaRef, Camron, JR, and I are not wrong yet.
MTD, Sr.