Unsure how anyone could think this is anything but reasonable.

Editors make mistakes, but this is a pretty big one. A point of emphasis on something that isn't a rule. Wow.

Another Nice Mess ...
 

"A point of emphasis on something that isn't a rule."

Yes, that pretty much sums up this entire mess.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0srO4LTzVTE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This Is What Happens When Officials Make Unilateral Interpretations ...
 

Sounds like the statement many of us are forced to make in regard to undershirts, headbands, wrist bands, and sleeves.

This has nothing to do with equipment. And you have not given a solution to the situation. Please speak about what you are going to do and not try to equate the situation as to what others should do. The NF did not check their statements and now you want officials to enforce rules that do not exist.

Peace

He's Not Here Tonight, Coach ...
 

Both situations can exist when one official unilaterally (all by himself) decides not to do what everyone else is doing.

Your statement, "I do not care what you did Tuesday, this is what we are doing tonight", is almost exactly what I say on a Friday night when the official on Tuesday night unilaterally decides not to enforce one, or more, of the "Fashion Police" rules. Word for word, pretty much, exactly the same.

Multilateral Decision ...
 

I know exactly what I am going to do, but it will only apply to Connecticut (although it might have international ramifications for all IAABO members), and it will have absolutely no impact on Illinois (and a lot of other states) basketball officials.

Next month, at out local interpretation (new rules) meeting, when our local interpreter covers the Point of Emphasis in question, I will raise my hand and state that there in no rule, nor is there a penalty, to cover this situation.

He will contact our state interpreter, who will contact our international interpreter, who will contact the NFHS, and get a proper interpretation. Then the NFHS interpretation will come back down the chain so that all Connecticut officials (and possibly all IAABO officials) are all doing the same thing in regard to this situation.

I am 100% positive that I will not make a unilateral decision to ignore said NFHS Point of Emphasis, nor will I make a make a unilateral decision to enforce said Point of Emphasis.

If I am not satisfied by this process, I may submit a rule change to the NFHS in the off season (as I successfully did this past off season regarding a change in the definition of goaltending) so that there is a rule, and a penalty, in place, allowing the enforcement of this year's Point of Emphasis.

I am pretty confident that there are not going to be many people that disagree with my position or action as we speak right now. There are other people that read the rules too and would see a contradiction as I or anyone else would. Also, since we have rules meetings, I am sure someone will inform the state about the contradiction if I do not ask a question first. I do not know what IAABO does, but here we ask our people exactly what they want and go from there. I would also bet that my state was more strict on uniform issues in the past than most places in the state. Heck we had a situation that made national news for God's sake (Article in Referee Magazine). Did your state make national news for a uniform violation? I did not think so. ;)

Peace

There's No "I" In Team ...
 

And I would agree with you. Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, many officials treat uniform, and equipment, issues as open to their own interpretation on how these rules impact the "actual" game. I had a partner throw me under the bus last year when I refused entry to a substitute who was not wearing a legal color undershirt. During the pregame layup lines, this player approached my partner, unbeknownst to me, and asked if he could play with said undershirt, to which my partner replied that it would be alright. When I denied said player entry as a substitute, an awkward discussion between myself, my partner, the player, and the coach, occurred.

It sounds like you guys have your act together regarding uniform, and equipment, issues. We're not at that point, yet.

Erratta
 

Conversation this morning with person in an official capacity above my pay grade who was in Indy this past week who assured me that a post-rulebook release Rule 9 edit/correction will be forthcoming if not from the NFHS at least from our state to solve this oversight.

In the NFHS/OHSAA (Ohio High School Athletic Association) preseason guide for 2015-2016 there is an article about this.

"Players along the free-throw lane lines during free throws are allowed to enter the free-throw lane on the release; however, when the defender crosses the free-throw line and into the semi-circle too soon, this is a violation. A delayed-violation signal is used. If the free throw is successful the violation is ignored.

If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and the contact is ruled a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to be dead."

So we'll either have nothing, a violation, or a technical foul.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

WOW!!!!

OK, "too soon". is poor wording since "too soon" is not defined but I know what they meant.

However, there is a huge problem with that ruling....

It can not be a technical foul. The ball isn't dead at the time of the violation. It is a "delayed" violation. The ball remains live until the shot is made or missed. The delayed nature of the violation doesn't retroactively make the ball dead, it is as if the violation occurred when/after the shot is missed.

If the ball were to be dead at the time a defender illegally crosses a into the lane or into the semi-circle, there would be no way a FT shooter could ever make a shot on a defensive violation.

If the shot is missed before the defender enters the semi-circle, it can't be a violation (unless they just entered the lane early) and the ball would be live...meaning it wouldn't be a technical.

The really need to rethink this one.

I agree. The technical foul part really surprised me. We have much to talk about at our first meeting.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Not exactly. The rules do not say what it is and that is the overall problem. You cannot say it is a violation when no where in Rule 8 or 9 says it is a violation. Someone did not read their rules before publishing such a statement in the first place. Just like during football this year there were several mistakes in the NF/NASO Guidebook that people in our state read and kept trying to highlight. So again, the NF did not change anything. They just made a mistake and have not corrected it. I do not understand why that is hard to grasp here when nothing in the rulebook says this is any kind of violation of the rules.

Peace

Because I'm not comfortable ignoring a POE, and there's nothing wrong with discussing it. We're going to get clarification from our respective states, etc.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Uncomfortable ...
 

I am also uncomfortable with ignoring a POE, but I would still like something, maybe an update, or an interpretation, from the NFHS to "hang my hat on". Short of that, I would like something (update, interpretation) from my state high school organization, or from my state referee organization.

Agree, I was posting under the assumption that, as someone else said, a correction to the rule is forthcoming to cover that. The whole point of my post, however, was not whether this was a violation or not but about the fact that a defensive violation of any kind on a FT doesn't make the ball dead as the ruling posted above suggests.

If the NFHS didn't want this penalized, then why would they put out a POE saying to call the violation. It's pretty clear to me that they want it penalized, and just failed to change the rule book. Like I said earlier, we've already been instructed by our state to call the violation, and until I get further information that's what I will do.

I have no issue with ignoring a POE that has a violation of the rules with no penalty. The water is even muddier with the statement that this could even be a Technical foul. How are we going to add this as a T without any rules support? I would love to hear that conversation after some official makes that one up.

Also, people on this site are a very small percentage of officials. The entire country is not reading this or even having this debate in the first place. Unless my state says to do different (like they did in football) then we are going to do what the rules states. It is that simple and what my state has done in the past on these kinds of mistakes.

Peace

I do not care what they want, I care what I can prove. And I cannot prove something in a part of the book that does not include a section and an article.

And like I said we have not been instructed to call anything extra. Time will tell, but something tells me this will not be advocated unless the NF comes out with a clarification.

Peace

POEs are often clarified (by the state) as to how they want those things handled. Nothing new there at all. But as stated before, most of the time there is a direct rule to reference. There is no rule in this case, but a statement about something being illegal when it clearly is not. So some new officials is not going to know or realize this was ever illegal or the significance of a POE in the first place.

Peace

So, A1 is shooting a free throw. If any B player causes a delayed violation and there is a foul by anyone before the end of the free throw it's a technical foul?

That's a new one.

NF Preseason Guide
 

I just got the NF Preseason Guide for 2015-2016 and on page 6 it addresses this situation.

A couple of observations, no mention in the Guide that this is a POE. I found that interesting.

Secondly it talks about a player on the lane line crossing the FT line is a violation and should be a delayed violation if done by the defense and a emphasis on if the shot goes you ignore the violation and if the shot is missed you call the violation. But it does not give any rules reference for that violation of the rules. They have two pictures. Picture A shows the "violation" I just mentioned. Then Picture B shows a violation by a teammate of the FT shooter coming into the center circle from behind the lane line and then gives a rules reference (9-1-3f).

Peace

This is clearly a problem and a huge oversight. Again, no rule says that this is a violation for the players on the lane line.

Those of you willing to ignore this simply because they missed it in the rules book are doing so in the face of ignoring what the NFHS clearly wants.

And it seems as though a few of you are doing this cause you think it's unnecessary or stupid to have this requirement.

I was at a meeting Monday night -- this is in the NFHS-written slide deck and was pretty prominent. They feel that because the shooter is not allow to cross over the line that no defender should be able to go into his area until the restrictions end for the shooter.

It will be fixed, but exactly *why* do you want to ignore something that the NFHS so *clearly* wants?

I agree Rich, restrictions are already in place for the shooter and people behind the 3 point arc about entering and exiting the free throw semi circle. All they are doing is making it consistent.

My only question is, does the delayed violation cause the ball to become dead?

I think you are wrong on many levels here. This is not about ignoring something, this is about rules supporting calling something. Just like all the targeting information in football that came from other sources telling everyone what the rules meant and my state had to remind everyone of what the actual rules stated.

This also happened for the record this has happened before (not just basketball) in the NF Guidebooks before where the Guide says one thing and the Rulebook says something else on the same topic and usually our state takes the position, "Call what is in the rulebook and the Guide is wrong." That happen this year in Football Guide and the higher ups pointed out 5 to 7 obvious mistakes from their point of view. The state brass did not need anyone to tell them to make that statement, they did so on their own or among each other and told the rest of the the state their position. Well in this case, I know I will ask our Head Clinician/Rules Interpreter when the time come and see what he and the state administrator has to say. And I will do what they suggest.

Not everyone reads the Guide as it often covers issues that are not rules based. It has only been the last few years that the IHSA stated sending this book to us as they do not send us a rulebook to us every year.

Peace

Well then put that in your rules. These are not restrictions at other levels. So the only level that would be "consistent" on this would be the NF. The NBA for example has no such restriction after the release and the NCAA has no such rule about players on the lane. That is the problem here. You have a special restriction that is in no other code and assume that without a rule that most people would even realize this would be a violation. You cannot do that if you claim you want consistency.

Peace

Exactly. The NFHS is the only rule set I was talking about. This new POE makes it consistent in the NFHS code when dealing with free throw semi circle violations. I wasn't referring to being consistent with the other rule sets. The NFHS clearly wants this called a violation, or they wouldn't have made it a point of emphasis. For whatever reason the rule wasn't changed in the rulebook, either by an editing mistake, oversight by the rules committee. It could have been a number of things.

They sure must not have wanted it bad enough if they forgot to even check the rulebook to make sure it was there.

Never said they were smart! More than likely they just assumed it was there. Hopefully we will get a bullet point from the NFHS regarding this, until then I will just do what we've been instructed here.

Personally, I don't think the rule is necessary. Want to protect the shooter? That's cool... Just call fouls when necessary.

As for disconcerting the FT shooter, just treat that situation like any other shooter. No need to make a rule specifically for a free throw. The FT shooter is not defended during the try (like how I accepted that I was wrong about that being a "try"?).

Here's your point of emphasis... Be ready to call fouls against a defender going to box out the FT shooter.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Yes, and according to the POE, once the violation happens the ball is dead, and contact not incidental is a Technical foul since it is dead ball contact.

This was a rule for 4 years, removed ONLY because it was made irrelevant by the change to the free throw restrictions in the late 90s.

I'm confident that this will be addressed in the clarifications. And some people will *still* ignore it because it's "not in the rule book."

But it's a delayed violation. The ball isn't dead until the try is unsuccessful and then it becomes a violation. Chances are you'll have a foul before the ball is dead/violation... So no dead ball tech.

I'm not aware of being able to have a retroactive violation,which would allow a dead ball tech.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Well again the NF has had this problem before. This was basically an old rule, but a current rule in the NCAA and NBA on some level and they took the rule from those levels and wanted to apply to the NF without using their rules.

Look this happened in football a few years ago. The rule for a Horse-collar was implemented after it was a rule at both the NFL and NCAA created their individual rules which had different exceptions (which are not necessary to discuss). Well the intent of the rule was one thing, but they way they worded it was totally different and confusing. Not to get too deep, but they said that you could only Horse-collar a runner, well a runner had a definition. You must have the ball during a live ball. Well if a player fumbled or went out of bounds, they were no longer a runner by definition. Because of this oversight, there were places that had to either take a harder line or they said that a "Horse-collar" could not be called in certain situation when a player no longer was a runner. This kind of oversight we had a Rules Interpreter in football say, "It takes the National Federation 3 years to get a rule right." Well we are in year two of this new rule and it is clear that they will have to use rule three to get this right if this is the implementation. I see this also as this incessant need by the NF to be so different, they play games with their rules and wording instead of just taking on what works at the other levels. Even the hand-checking rule they had to play games with the wording and what do we do here? Argue over the meaning or differences.

When in football they first implemented the Horse-Collar Rule it caused a lot of confusion and inconsistency and arguing at places like this and states did what they felt was best, which is all I am saying needs to be done here. I never said to ignore anything. I just think we need to clarify how and when we call this. Also it is a problem when people have suggested technical fouls or awarding a simple violation just like they did in football when the difference between a dead ball foul and a live ball foul can be a huge difference. This has to be clarified by either the NF or the state organizations on some level or will will keep having this discussion in the manner. It has nothing to do with ignoring a POE.

Peace

Clearly the POE / Article had a missing word and the author had it in his mind as a violation followed by a miss followed by non-incidental contact:

"If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and <s>the</s> subsequent contact is ruled a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to be dead."

Agree completely.

I'll call the foul for displacement early and won't have to worry about it anymore the rest of the game?

So we have a POE that doesn't have a corresponding rule and also incorrectly states the ball is dead.

But I'm supposed to be confident that they know what they want. :rolleyes:

And if you are unclear, you are ignoring the statement when there clearly is a rule.

Sorry, but that is silly talk if that is the expectation. That is why I will be asking for clarification from my state. What they ultimately tell us to do, I will advocate right or wrong.

Peace

Unfortunately, that is dead wrong. To prove it, consider the following: A1 is attempting a FT. B1 in a marked lane space enters the lane prior to the release. We know that this is a delayed violation. However, if the attempt is successful the try counts and the violation is ignored. If the ball were to become dead, then no point could be scored BY RULE as goals are only possible when a live ball enters the basket from above. Therefore, we can be certain that the ball remains live during the FT attempt when there is a delayed violation. Thus any foul committed during this time is a personal foul.

Anyone instructing otherwise is a silly monkey.

Furthermore, not all violations cause the ball to immediately become dead. For example, when there is a try in flight, a leaving the court violation by the defense or an excessive swing of arms/elbows violation does not cause the ball to become dead and any foul which occurs thereafter, but prior to the end of the try or is committed by or on the airborne shooter is a live ball, personal foul.

I have not seen the actual text of the POE or the preseason guide yet. Does it really say if the contact "isn't incidental" during a dead ball period that it is a technical foul?
I ask because that is wrong. It should say if the contact is intentional or flagrant, then it needs to be ruled a technical foul if it occurs after the FT has ended. We have a clear rule that instructs officials to ignore common fouls (which are by definition not incidental contact) when the ball is dead.

After hearing the process in which NFHS goes about discussing/making rules changes....especially compared to NCAA....this all really comes off as someone implementing a backdoor way to make a rule change.

This is from the NFHS Preseason Guide. I got my copy last week with my rule, case and mechanics books.

The free thrower is not allowed to cross the free-throw line until the ball makes contact with the backboard or the basket. That same rule applies to any other player. Players along the free-throw lane lines during free throws are allowed to enter the free-throw lane on the release; however, when the defender crosses the free-throw line and into the semi-circle too soon, this is a violation. A delayed violation signal is used. If the free throw is successful, the violation is ignored.

If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and the contact is ruled to be a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to become dead.

Editorial changes and POEs don't require the same process as formal rule changes. Maybe you're onto something....

I would be interested in learning about the various processes used if you care to elaborate or start another thread etc.

Yes, we saw that. But it clearly is an error, due to the fact that the ball is not dead until the try ends.

This is not something from the rulebook, therefore it's not gospel.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

And you don't see anything wrong with that verbiage?

I don't recall ever saying that it was right. I was just relaying what was printed, and I also believe I said we will have to wait and see if we get clarification from the NFHS.

But that isn't anything new, with or without it being a violation for crossing the FT line.

A contact foul after the ball is dead is either incidental or a technical (ignoring airborne shooter situations).

He is just pointing out what the poe should have said.

Maybe it could have said that, but it would be irrelevant. I think you two are giving the person who wrote that too much credit. I think they meant what it says. The context and tone of the rest of it supports that.

In any case, even if it did mean to say that, it would still be wrong.

The first sentence of the relevant part set forth above says contact more than incidental is a personal foul. The third sentence says technical foul. I think it is clear they meant to say contact after the shot is missed is technical. (they could just be knuckleheads)

The POE is wrong because there is no rule which says crossing FT line is a violation. However, if we accept that there is going to be such a rule, the way Bob has amended the POE would be correct and a true statement. Crossing the line and making more than incidental contact while FT in air/has chance to go in is personal foul. Contact after shot is clearly not successful is ignored unless intentional or flagrant(technical).

And that is wrong.
The red statement is correct.
But that isn't what it said. It said that contact after the ball is dead is a technical if it isn't incidental. It takes more than not being incidental, as you properly stated, to become a technical.

The statement can't be made right by changing just one or two words. It is wrong in too many ways. It was just published without thinking.

you're right. it is a complete mess..

Again ...
 

Bingo.

I asked our state rules interpreter about this. His response is the following.

There are times when the rules corrections/changes aren't updated in the rule book. With that said, we have to defer to the POE as it clarifies the intent of the rule. The POE is an extension of rule 9-1-3g. POE's are situations the NFHS wants us to look more closely at.

But this was not an announced change? It is not about updating, this was never an announced change. The POE came out of nowhere on this one.

Peace

Stupid NFHS Monkeys ...
 

Now we have the necessary NFHS rule, and penalty, citations to accompany this Point of Emphasis:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post967790

Case closed.

Can't Quite Book 'Em, Danno.
 

Hope so, but remember that I got this from an unattributable source who said he knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy's cousin who got this from his local interpreter who said he got it from IAABO who that guy said they got it from NFHS.
I still haven't seen anything from any official NFHS source.
Looks official.
You IAABO adherents get that same thing?

Heard It From A Nigerian Prince ...
 

Our first meeting is Wednesday, October 14, 2015.

And we've been told to follow the POE

The POE that had a major mistake in it? And your state just blindly was going to follow it. Doesn't speak well for those in charge in OK.

So what are you going to do next year if the rule does not reflect this year's POE?

Are you going to be following POEs of year's past?

Peace

Why are you attacking OKREF for doing what he's been told to do? Shouldn't we all be doing what we're told to do?

How about becoming part of the solution instead of reiterating the problem that we all know exists?

I'm criticizing the NFHS and state of Oklahoma. But OKREF keeps defending his state's decision makers, so he catches the flack by proxy. He instead should have been questioning his state for passing along bad info without further clarification.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Huh?

The only thing OKREF said after his initial post was "And we've been told to follow the POE". I think I'm going to avoid posting what the Ohio High School Athletic Association and/or my assignors tell me to do, because it sounds like it will get twisted into me too blindly following somebody.

If they pass on bad information and as a serious official one doesn't at least send an inquiry back to the state, well I just don't know what to say about that.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I asked about the POE. I also said there was nothing in the rulebook disallowing a defense player from crossing the free throw line, and I asked do we follow the rulebook, or the POE. The answer I got was the POE is an extension of the rule. I sent an inquiry asking the relevent question. I don't need to keep going back and forth and argue with the people who make the decisions here. I know some people on this forum would do that, but I prefer to just do as I'm instructed.

My boss doesn't have to tell me why I have to do something at work, I just have to do it. Just like in this case. It would be nice to get further clarification, but it's certainly not necessary for me to do my job.

And what does it matter? Would you like a representative of the NFHS to make a video, apologizing for their mistake?

We'll ask our "people" what they want to be done, and we should do it. Plain and simple. If you want to talk about their decision, and the merits of such, that's fine. But to attack somebody that's just "following orders" is ridiculous.

The bad information was the verbiage about the type of foul to call if there was illegal contact.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

They put out bad information about the type of foul to call for illegal contact. Did you even know that?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Are you talking about the preseason guide that I first brought up in this thread? The thing about the technical foul? I looked back and I don't see where Oklahoma or OKREF talked about what type of foul to call should one occur.

I understand that. Did I ever say anything about that? If you read the actual POE from the NFHS it says nothing about contact.



FREE THROW SHOOTER
Rule 9-1-3g was revised in 2014-15 to allow a player occupying a marked lane space to enter the lane on the release of the ball by the free thrower. As a result of this change, protection of the free thrower needs to be emphasized. On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line extended into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends

I am not attacking anyone. I just have been in a state that has noticed the NF screw up and does not blindly go along with it. It seems like every year the NF Guidebook has issues that our state has to clarify and usually tells us the guide is wrong. It happened this year in football. The Head Clinician in that sport went around talking about the mistakes and told us not to follow them.

Peace

Hmmmm. [emoji41]

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

The guy shared with us what he was told, and it sounded like he was being hounded. And I don't agree that the state, in this case, "blindly" went along with it. Like others have said right here, it was clearly meant to be in the rules, but was mistakenly left out. Why would they have a POE without meaning to make it a rule?

I know... using logic is bad.

I got another quote for you, which came shortly after that from 10 days ago..

You're still going on about that?

That isn't from the actual POE, it's from a magazine article, which after the fact I shouldn't have typed "according to the POE". It's all good though, I don't have to worry about what people in other states have been instructed to do. I asked, found out,

Actually on the NFHS website, this appears.

Interpretations: All interpretation questions are to be directed to the local state association. The NFHS only addresses interpretations at the request of the state association.

So, I correctly ask my rules interpreter, following the guidelines of the NFHS, get an answer, and I'm wrong for that. Our director of officials also told me he would pass my questions on up to the NFHS. So, like I said, I will still do as instructed by my state until further notice.

Isn't the POE clarification as how they want it called? A released POE seems like clarification to me.

Play nice. Argue the post, not the poster. I really don't want to close this thread.

Yes, but they are usually based on actual rules or interpretations that can be found in the actual literature. I cannot think of a time where a POE created a rules change without the rules actually being changed. For the record, I am talking about how this applies in all NF sports, not just basketball. Also when there is some wording that has had confusion or might not be totally correct, those situations are usually clarified by the NF.

Peace

Doesn't that POE history make you think that the error was excluding it from rules? I really don't believe that this is a case of a POE creating anything.

I'm not saying anybody should just assume the violation, but I'm not going to be surprised if I'm told to call it one.

Rules changes are voted on and accepted. So if it was intended to be a rules change, they should have simply stated their intention. They had months before last year to do just that. Then this year they could have changed the wording like they do other things and they didn't.

Again, when you look in the actual rules, this is not a violation anywhere in the actual rules. That is a problem no matter how you want to minimize that fact. That is what you they should have done if they suggest they want consistency. As I have said before, we're just a small sample size to all the officials. I know there are officials that have noticed this inconsistency and will either not go along with the POE's wording or go only with what is in the rulebook. If you want inconsistency, stay the course and say nothing. At this point without clarification I am not calling a violation for this. I will call a foul if needed because nothing in the rule contradicts calling a foul when appropriate.

Peace

You should have closed it about 165 posts ago, imo.

Agreed, Bob.