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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Rich

It wasn't the rule 30 years ago. It was a rule for 4 years, from 1993-94 until the lane restrictions were changed in 1997-98 and it became unnecessary.

Ok, I honestly have no idea what the rules were 30 years ago. But I knew that it had been a rule at one point long ago.

I stopped being pedantic about the rules about 10 years ago. Really liberating, you should try it!

"Pedantic" seems to be somewhat a matter of opinion, since one person's trivial detail is another's crucial distinction ("marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects"), but I take your point.

I happen to think that it's important for the rules, case plays and POEs to be internally consistent. It bothers me when one section of the book says x and another section says not-x. It also bothers me when it appears that the people who are entrusted with the rules of the game seem to have a cavalier attitude about the changes that they make.

I realize not everybody feels the same way, but the details matter to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I realize not everybody feels the same way, but the details matter to me.

OK, but what are you looking to confirm? The rule is written the way it is. There is no rule for crossing the FT line like their used to be. I do not believe any other level had that rule in place but the NF. But you still can protect the shooter from being displaced, but the issue is no longer crossing a line.

I do not see this as a big deal. The rule is different now, that is all.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, but what are you looking to confirm? The rule is written the way it is. There is no rule for crossing the FT line like their used to be. I do not believe any other level had that rule in place but the NF. But you still can protect the shooter from being displaced, but the issue is no longer crossing a line.

I do not see this as a big deal. The rule is different now, that is all.

Peace

Well, that's the point he's making. Maybe I'm being too blasé about it after all.

The NFHS is saying that it's a rule (based on the POE), but then forgot to put it in the rules proper.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Rich

The NFHS is saying that it's a rule (based on the POE), but then forgot to put it in the rules proper.

Exactly, I think they're saying in the POE to call a violation; but it's not listed as a violation in the rulebook or casebook.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Rich

. . . but then forgot to put it in the rules proper.

As I await delivery of the new rulebook and casebook, I had imagined they'd add this as a violation somewhere.
Did you get a look at the new rulebook?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Freddy

As I await delivery of the new rulebook and casebook, I had imagined they'd add this as a violation somewhere.
Did you get a look at the new rulebook?

It's not in the NFHS Central Hub yet and we haven't received them yet in my state.

I hear the mechanics manual has been completely overhauled, though, so it will be interesting to see what changes they snuck in there.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Rich

I hear the mechanics manual has been completely overhauled, though, so it will be interesting to see what changes they snuck in there.

I've only skimmed it, but the thing I immediately noticed was that the new manual contains a description of each signal and how the NFHS wants each signal made.

The other thing I immediately checked for was whether or not they're allowing two-handed reporting. Alas, still required to use one hand according to the NFHS.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

The other thing I immediately checked for was whether or not they're allowing two-handed reporting. Alas, still required to use one hand according to the NFHS.

Yep, that sure stops em from using two hands here (sarc).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

As I await delivery of the new rulebook and casebook, I had imagined they'd add this as a violation somewhere.
Did you get a look at the new rulebook?

I have the rulebooks and casebook and I do not see this at all. But maybe I will do some investigation to be sure of that. I just did not notice any change in the rules this year yet.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Did you get a look at the new rulebook?

I just got mine today and it's not listed as a violation in Rule 8 or 9.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I just got mine today and it's not listed as a violation in Rule 8 or 9.

Is there any casebook citation? Perhaps something along the lines of ignoring the violation when a foul against the free thrower follows?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Is there any casebook citation? Perhaps something along the lines of ignoring the violation when a foul against the free thrower follows?

Nope, the case plays for 9.1 seem to be the same as last year.

[bballref3966]

The NFHS did nothing to improve the backcourt rule or team control. Not that I'm surprised.

Here's a new article under the point of interruption rule (4-36)

“ART. 3 . . . When the ball remains live after a violation or foul (as in 4-19-8) during a try for goal, the point of interruption is determined to be when the ball becomes dead following the violation or foul.”

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

The NFHS did nothing to improve the backcourt rule or team control. Not that I'm surprised.

Here's a new article under the point of interruption rule (4-36)

“ART. 3 . . . When the ball remains live after a violation or foul (as in 4-19-8). . .”

What does 4-19-8 (double fouls) have to do with anything?

[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.