[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

1) Belated Happy Turkey Day everybody.


2) I apologize in advance if this Interpretation has already been discussed but I have been away from basketball for the last couple of months. I did not even attend the IAABO Fall Interpreters' Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, this past September 2009.


3) Rules Interpretation SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in by Team A, B1 breaks the plane of the boundary line. The official stops play. RULING: Team B is issued a warning for breaking the throw-in plane. Since the original alternation-possession throw-in had not ended, the ball is awarded to Team A and remains an alternating-possession throw-in. Any type of further delay by Team B results in a team technical foul. (R4-S42-A5; R4-S47-A1; R6-S4-A4; R7-S6-A4; R10-S1-A5c)

First: R9-S2-A10 should also be included in the rules that are referenced.

Second: See NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Casebook Play 4.42.5, which is:

SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking
violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the throw-in was not contacted legally, the throw-in had not ended. The arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. (R6-S4-A4).

Third: I highlighted in RED the two contradictory phrases in these two interpretations.

Fourth: The RED phrase in the Casebook Play IS correct. The RED phrase in the Rules Interpreation IS NOT correct. The Casebook Play and the Rules Interpretation are, for all intents and purposes, the same type of infration of the rules.

Fifth: Has anybody contacted Mary Struckhoff yet about the incorrect phrase in the Rules Interpretation.

MTD, Sr.