New editorial changes this year:
Rule 6-4-5: "The opportunity to make an alternating-possission throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow.
If an opponent commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is postponed."
This year's change is in red. First of all, did this need clarification? Were there people who read the original wording of the rule and thought "Oh, since the throw-in team loses the arrow if they violate, they must also lose it if the other team violates"?
Second of all: the arrow is postponed? Really? How is an arrow postponed? I'm amazed that this sentence made it to press. The arrow isn't postponed. However, the subsequent throw-in is no longer an AP throw-in, so the arrow remains pointed toward the throw-in team's basket.
Next, here's the addition to Rule 2-2-4 NOTE: "State associations may intercede in the event of unusual incidents that occur before, during or after the officials' jurisdiction has ended or in the event that a contest is terminated prior to the conclusion of regulation play."
What exactly is this referring to? How would a state association intercede in a game that is in progress? I guess maybe I can see if it's a state playoff game and a member of the state association is on site, and there's a question of eligibility or something? Is a state association now allowed to overrule an official's ruling during a contest?
If a referee forfeits a game, is this saying that the state association is allowed to negate the forfeit and allow the teams to complete the game? If so, my guess is that the state associations weren't waiting for the Fed's approval.
Does anybody know if there was some particular incident that made somebody think this was a needed editorial change?
I have to say that I'm shocked at how amateurish the rule and editorial changes have been handled over the last two years. It's really sad
