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