How do you emphasize a rule that doesn't exist?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Since Cameron has now provided a rules basis for the interpretation perhaps the focus of this conversation should switch from should you call it (yes you should) to how it should be applied.

And if you are still on the fence about a player being disconcerted after the release, consider this: A players is stepping up to the line for his 10th free throw of the game (its been a rough one). As part of his routine he holds his follow-through for an extended period of time and remains focused until the ball hits the rim. During the first nine free throws he took a defender crosses the line and is in his space during this follow through process before the ball hits the rim. Could this disruption of the shooter's process be enough to disconcert him, causing him to adjust what he normally does and effectively taking away the advantage a free throw is supposed to award him? BTW, this would not apply to a regular shot because the same expectations for awarding the shooter an opportunity to take a shot without interference do not exist.

I can see this along with Cameron's rule reference as an argument for the POE.

And note that I originally was under the belief that there was no rule support for the POE but, someone inadvertently, discovered there actually is.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, the rule doesn't even say they can't enter the lane until the release. It only says they can't leave their lane space until the release. There is no reference to which direction they leave it or where they go to. The rule has no restrictions on location once the ball is released (for players in a marked lane space).



All that said, I just noticed something interesting in the rule that does give support to the POE. Look at these other parts of the rule...



I have never considered it to be possible to disconcert after the ball has been released but the rules do allow for it. So, you could consider crossing the FT line to be disconcertion and have it supported by the rules. If so, it really isn't about what areas are restricted or not but really simply about interfering with the shooter during his protected time frame....disconcertion. Of course, if that is the case, a player doesn't even have to cross into the FT semi-circle to do that.

IMO disconcertion --to disturb or disrupt--- is a "cause and effect" situation. Defense does something that causes shooter to 1. miss the shot OR 2. otherwise violate. The obvious one-- the defender waves arms and we believe it disturbed shooter=disconcertion. Once the shot is in the air the things the defense does will not cause the shot to be missed.
However, we know the shooter cant cross line until ball hits ring. I suppose the defense can do something to cause the shooter to cross the line. So they can "disconcert" after the ball is in the air---although ive never see it or called it.

Here, if the defense crosses the free throw line it is not likely to cause the shot to be missed since the ball will likely be released already. It could possible cause the FT shooter to cross the line too soon. But if the ball is released on the shot, then defender crosses line and blocks shooter back a few feet the defender has not caused the shot to be missed or caused the FT shooter to violate. I dont see that as "disconcertion." The POE simply says crossing the line is a violation. I dont think that = disconcertion.

And just to add--if im shooting a Ft and the defender steps on the lane line before i release the ball he has violated. We put up delayed violation signal. If i shoot an air ball the official has to decide if defender stepping on the line cause my airball--did it disconcert me? If it didnt--i just cant shoot...then we have a double violation. I think this shows that disconcertion requires the defense to do something which "causes" the offense to miss shot or violate etc.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...


I have never considered it to be possible to disconcert after the ball has been released but the rules do allow for it. So, you could consider crossing the FT line to be disconcertion and have it supported by the rules. If so, it really isn't about what areas are restricted or not but really simply about interfering with the shooter during his protected time frame....disconcertion. Of course, if that is the case, a player doesn't even have to cross into the FT semi-circle to do that.

Good catch...is that new wording or has it been in there for a while? I have never noticed it.

[billyu2]

In the 2014-15 Rule Interpretations found on the NFHS website and here on the forum, it says to delete Rule 9-1-4, page 55. Apparently, it was mistakenly left in the rule book when the free throw rule was changed back to the release.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by billyu2

In the 2014-15 Rule Interpretations found on the NFHS website and here on the forum, it says to delete Rule 9-1-4, page 55. Apparently, it was mistakenly left in the rule book when the free throw rule was changed back to the release.

9-1-3c-"No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower"was lumped in with 9-1-4 (the restictions in 9-1-3b through g apply until ball touches ring.....) in the old books. I dont think by removing 9-1-4 from the book they are making a change to disconcertion.--Before disconcertion meant until ball hits ring and now it means release--- I think they likely just realized it isnt necessary to say anything more than what 9-1-3c already says. You cant disconcert the free throw shooter. To me that means you cant do anything to cause him to miss the shot or to violate. FT shooter can violate until ball hits rim.

If the FT is in the air, then the defense steps over FT line and somehow that CAUSES the FT shooter to step on the line before ball hits rim...i think you can call that disconcertion. I dont think simply stepping over the line equals disconcertion but 9-1-3c is the closest support for it. I'd like for them to simply add the wording to the rule.

[JRutledge]

I do not understand why we are trying to play games with the rules based on what the rule "used to be." The rules at every other level had no such provision. We have not had this rule in place for well over a decade and now we are worried about what the rule was in 96-97 (My first year) before they made the change?

This is the epitome of silliness. This really is if you ask me. And the NF has not helped this by using wording that does not coincide with their current rules. This is too deep for me. I am just calling what the rules are now. There is no extra violation and I am not calling one just because it is in a POE.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not understand why we are trying to play games with the rules based on what the rule "used to be."

Because, maybe, the NFHS wants to go back to the rule as it "used to be", as evidenced by this recent Point of Emphasis.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the NF has not helped this by using wording that does not coincide with their current rules.

Agree 100%. This certainly puts officials, especially clinicians (like, I believe, JRutledge), trainers, and interpreters, "between a rock, and a hard place". Follow the Point of Emphasis, and contradict the rule; or follow the rule, and contradict the Point of Emphasis.

The NFHS doesn't even list a penalty for this Point of Emphasis: violation, technical foul, disqualification, double-secret probation (I assume violation, because that what the rule "used to be")?

Silly NFHS monkeys (with reverence for Jurassic Referee).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am just calling what the rules are now. There is no extra violation and I am not calling one just because it is in a POE.

So, you're unilaterally not going to emphasize a NFHS Point Of Emphasis? Don't you believe that the NFHS is emphasizing something because they want it emphasized by officials?

According to Merriam Webster, emphasize means to give special attention, or importance, to something; so it seems apparent that the NFHS wants us to enforce the following:

"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."

Do you believe that the NFHS wants us to ignore something that they clearly want emphasized?

Unilaterally ignoring the Point of Emphasis is not the answer. Seeking guidance from the NFHS, probably through one's state high school organization, or one's state officials organization, is the right way to approach this.



As an IAABO member, in a 100% IAABO state, I already know what we'll be doing since we "jumped the gun" last year, and by "jumping the gun", I mean that we were wrong to do so. Now, we have, at least, some backing from the NFHS, a Point of Emphasis without, unfortunately, a rule backing.

Again, silly NFHS, and IAABO, monkeys.

Who knows (other than the NFHS)? In the end, JRutledge may come out on the right side of this debate. He has several good points (no pun intended), no written rule, no written penalty, no written casebook play interpretation, a Point of Emphasis that will "disappear" from the rulebook the following year, in his favor, but, somehow, I doubt that he'll come out on the side intended by the NFHS, otherwise, why would they publish a Point of Emphasis regarding this situation? On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on JRutledge being wrong here, maybe a hundred bucks, but not my house.

I wouldn't bet my house on anything published by the NFHS (see team control/throwin/backcourt). Wouldn't it be nice if the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor actually edited?

For the third time, silly NFHS monkeys.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because, maybe, the NFHS wants to go back to the rule as it "used to be", as evidenced by this recent Point of Emphasis.

Well then adopt that rule. It is not that hard.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100%. This certainly puts officials, especially clinicians (like, I believe, JRutledge), trainers, and interpreters, "between a rock, and a hard place". Follow the Point of Emphasis, and contradict the rule; or follow the rule, and contradict the Point of Emphasis.

It does not put me in any rock and and a hard place. The rules are clear, this is not a violation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, you're unilaterally not going to emphasize a NFHS Point Of Emphasis? Don't you believe that the NFHS is emphasizing something because they want it emphasized by officials?

What rule is violated? There is your answer. I am not going to do anything but do what the rules says. I do not have POE sessions in games.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

According to Merriam Webster, emphasize means to give special attention, or importance, to something; so it seems apparent that the NFHS wants us to enforce the following:

Glad you know the Webster definition. But irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"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."

Do you believe that the NFHS wants us to ignore something that they clearly want emphasized?

I do not care what the NF does. I do not work for the NF. The NF has never given me a single game. They NF did not assign me to any post season or allow me to work any State Finals. I do not care what the NF intended. If they want people to do what they suggest, have a rule that supports their position.

Now if the IHSA wants to come out and give a statement or suggest we should enforce a rule that does not exist, then they better do better than the NF is doing in this case.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unilaterally ignoring the Point of Emphasis is not the answer. Seeking guidance from the NFHS, probably through one's state high school organization, or one's state officials organization, is the right way to approach this.

Not the answer for what? The NF has not changed their rules to reflect any such penalty or why it is illegal. It does not fall under any punishment that we have at our disposal. I do not see anything wrong with not enforcing something that is not a rule. They clearly made and editorial mistake and I will recognized it as such until further notice. Not the first time and certainly will not be the last.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

As an IAABO member, in a 100% IAABO state, I already know what we'll be doing since we "jumped the gun" last year, and by "jumping the gun", I mean that we were wrong to do so. Now, we have, at least, some backing from the NFHS, a Point of Emphasis without, unfortunately, a rule backing.

Well good for you. I do not live in an IAABO state. I do not care what you guys or any one else in the country does. We will have rules meetings in our state and this will and can be addressed.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Who knows (other than the NFHS)? In the end, JRutledge may come out on the right side of this debate. He has several good points (no pun intended), no written rule, no written penalty, no written casebook play interpretation, a Point of Emphasis that will "disappear" from the rulebook the following year, in his favor, but, somehow, I doubt that he'll come out on the side intended by the NFHS, otherwise, why would they publish a Point of Emphasis regarding this situation? On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on JRutledge being wrong here, maybe a hundred bucks, but not my house.

This is not about being right. This is about majoring in the minors. This is not something that most officials are even going to notice first of all. Most officials I am sure have no idea that the NF had the rule that even required this at some point and certainly do not see it at other levels. Even someone like myself just thought they were adopting the rules of the NCAA and NBA in this area.

All of this could be solved by changing a rule in midstream and saying "We made a mistake" or "We included a POE that did not fit the rules." Problem solved.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Now if the IHSA wants to come out and give a statement or suggest we should enforce a rule that does not exist, then they better do better than the NF is doing in this case ... They clearly made and editorial mistake ... We will have rules meetings in our state and this will and can be addressed ... All of this could be solved by changing a rule in midstream and saying "We made a mistake" or "We included a POE that did not fit the rules." Problem solved.

Agree on all counts. Enforcing this "(POE) ruling", or ignoring this "(POE) ruling", should not involve unilateral decisions determined by individual officials. As I stated earlier, seeking guidance from the NFHS, probably through one's state high school organization, or one's state officials organization, is the right way to approach this. To have one individual official enforce this Point of Emphasis, thus ignoring the written rule, and to have another official ignore the Point of Emphasis, and only enforce the written rule, in the same league, in the same conference, or in the same state, is a recipe for disaster.

Coach: "Hey? Official Smith didn't do it that way Tuesday night."

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not the first time and certainly will not be the last.

Sad, but true.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree on all counts. Enforcing this "(POE) ruling", or ignoring this "(POE) ruling", should not involve unilateral decisions determined by individual officials. As I stated earlier, seeking guidance from the NFHS, probably through one's state high school organization, or one's state officials organization, is the right way to approach this. To have one individual official enforce this Point of Emphasis, thus ignoring the written rule, and to have another official ignore the Point of Emphasis, and only enforce the written rule, in the same league, in the same conference, or in the same state, is a recipe for disaster.

I am only seeking guidance from the IHSA. I do not need to hear from the NF. If they NF decides they are going to give a statement, that is on them. Until then, only my state matters in this area.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Coach: "Hey? Official Smith didn't do it that way Tuesday night."

I will say the same things I said for years.

"I do not care what you did Tuesday, this is what we are doing tonight."

Peace

[Texas Aggie]

I happen to think that it's important for the rules, case plays and POEs to be internally consistent.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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

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

Yes, that pretty much sums up this entire mess.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

"I do not care what you did Tuesday, this is what we are doing tonight."

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

"I do not care what you did Tuesday, this is what we are doing tonight."

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This has nothing to do with equipment.

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.