Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Big Cat:
Let us look at the following play: Both Team A and Team B dress ten players but only list eight names on their respective Team Rosters at the Ten Minute Mark. Team B has control of the Ball early in the fourth quarter. B1 passes the ball toward B2; the pass is not very accurate and in a failed attempt to keep the Ball from going Out-of-Bounds, B2 is injured and cannot continue to Play. HC-B decides to replace B2 with B9 who is not listed in the Scorebook. Team B is charged with a TF for adding a player to its roster. After B9 has entered the game but before any player from Team A attempts the first FT from Team B's TF, Team A requests and is granted a TO. HC-A sends A10 to the Scorer to report into the game before the TO Warning Buzzer to attempt the FTs. Team A is charged with a TF for adding a player to its roster. The result is that this is a FDF and Team A will attempt its FTs because of Team B's TF and then Team B will attempt its FTs because of Team A's TF; Team B will then be awarded a throw-in at the division line opposite the S/T Table.
The foul sequence in the play in the previous paragraph occured in the same Stopped Clock Dead Ball Period. The foul sequence in CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C occured in the same Stopped Clock Dead Ball Period.
The RULING in CB Play 3.4.3. Sit. C is defended in the COMMENT of the CB Play which states: "When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered “approximately the same time”." Based upon the Rules it is a complete fallacy that the two TFs are DTFs. No where in the Rules will anyone find such support for the DTF conclusion stated in the COMMENT.
What is more puzzling is that CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C references CB Play 6.4.1. Sit. A, which specifically states that the foul sequence is a FDF.
I do not have a problem if the Rules Committee wants TFs committed by each team during the Pre-Game Dead Ball Period to offset, one-for-one, but the Rules Committee must first change the Rules. The Rules Committee cannot just write a RULING that cannot be supported by the Rules and wish (upon a star) for it to be correct. The RULING and COMMENT in CB Play 3.4.3 Sit. C is sheer nonsense; it is not supported by Rule and none of the Rules listed support the RULLING and COMMENT.
"Approximately at the same time" means just that, not that the Fouls occured during the same Stop Clock Dead Ball Period.
MTD, Sr.
|
Mark, my thoughts below
I agree with you and many others that it would be best if the NFHS would have everything that affects playing of game in the rules, in order, concise etc. I think Billy mentioned the other day the person who becomes an official this year will have no idea about the elbow rule etc. The rules, case book, points of emphasis etc could be reviewed every few years and codified in one place.
However, the NFHS is, as you know, the governing body. It is in charge of the rules and the case book. it has declared in the case book that it, the Case Book, has been "designated an official supplement to the rules....it is approved and official." Again, id like to see things laid out in rule book but the NFHS, imo, certainly has the authority to expand or even create rules via the case book. not unlike a lot of law in society. much of it comes through case decisions. some of it through statutes..(note-state associations can modify rules etc if they choose)
In 3.4.3C NFHS is taking the fact situation presented and telling us what they want. there is no doubt that they are taking the phrase "approximately the same time" in 4-19-8b and expanding its natural meaning under certain circumstances before the game starts. if each team commits a 10-1-2 team technical, before the game starts, they are deemed to occur at approximately the same time---even if one happens at 9 minute mark and other at 2 minute mark. obviously, this goes against every notion we have about what "approximately the same time" means, and they lose credibility by saying it this way...but it is their rules and case book so if they want to define that phrase, that way, i think they can do it. (its in and has been in case book so they obviously have...) It's a fiction created to reach a certain result they want.
They would be much better off being more direct and saying, in the rules, something like 10-1-2 team technicals committed prior to start of game offset...
Finally, there is a separate reference to 6.4.1 Sit A. it says "See" that play. i think they just want you to look at that play and see the differences in the two plays.
Again, it would certainly be best to have everything codified. things could be made much clearer. it shouldnt be this hard to figure out...thx