|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
My only question is, does the delayed violation cause the ball to become dead? Last edited by OKREF; Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:47am. |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by OKREF; Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:27am. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
||||
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." |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
"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 |
Bookmarks |
|
|
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100103-how-do-you-emphasize-rule-doesnt-exist.html
|
||||
Posted By | For | Type | Date | |
New Free Throw Rule for ’15/16: Was This an Issue for You Last Season? | This thread | Pingback | Sat Sep 26, 2015 06:38pm |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Letter..." or "Spirit..." -- Can the Second Exist Without the First First | Freddy | Basketball | 24 | Thu Sep 20, 2012 08:00am |
Coach's team loses cause he doesn't know the rule... | Ref_in_Alberta | Basketball | 12 | Sat Feb 28, 2009 07:25am |
Blarge--does it exist? | Jurassic Referee | Basketball | 92 | Sat Jan 27, 2007 01:45pm |
Doesn't look back rule apply here? | mg43 | Softball | 18 | Thu Mar 23, 2006 01:44pm |
It Just Doesn't Get Any Better Than This | rainmaker | Basketball | 17 | Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:42am |