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

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Rich

BTW, the alternating possession arrow is 30 years old this year --

[BryanV21]

I respect you, J, which is why it's important to me that you understand what I'm saying or not saying. Trust me, I have thick skin, which officiating had helped me develop. You, and others here, ate in the camp where I want to make sure I'm understood so I can learn and get better.

FYI, I did not feel bullied, just misunderstood. Thanks, Cat.

Oh, and I'm in year 8 of being a certified official, and I'm 37 years old.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I respect you, J, which is why it's important to me that you understand what I'm saying or not saying. Trust me, I have thick skin, which officiating had helped me develop. You, and others here, ate in the camp where I want to make sure I'm understood so I can learn and get better.

FYI, I did not feel bullied, just misunderstood. Thanks, Cat.

Oh, and I'm in year 8 of being a certified official, and I'm 37 years old.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Well Bryan, it sounded better when i said you were a kid. Actually, to J and I, 37 probably is a kid. . Again, if we were all in the same room we speak and it is over. Jeff, I'm sorry i called you a bully and told you to shut up. Kindergarten was hard for me. I still have issues

BigCat

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Well Bryan, it sounded better when i said you were a kid. Actually, to J and I, 37 probably is a kid. . Again, if we were all in the same room we speak and it is over. Jeff, I'm sorry i called you a bully and told you to shut up. Kindergarten was hard for me. I still have issues

BigCat

You can speak for yourself there. Someone 37 is a peer to me. I am not 57 years old.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

you can speak for yourself there. Someone 37 is a peer to me. I am not 57 years old.

peace

50

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

50

Not me. I am closer to 37 than 50.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I respect you, J, which is why it's important to me that you understand what I'm saying or not saying. Trust me, I have thick skin, which officiating had helped me develop. You, and others here, ate in the camp where I want to make sure I'm understood so I can learn and get better.

FYI, I did not feel bullied, just misunderstood. Thanks, Cat.

Oh, and I'm in year 8 of being a certified official, and I'm 37 years old.

OK. You clarified your position. You can let it go now.

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Also the POE specifically says incidental contact. You can't really call a foul on incidental contact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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, 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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

WOW!!!!

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.

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

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 do 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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Because I'm not comfortable ignoring a POE,

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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

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