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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But that isn't anything new, with or without it being a violation for crossing the FT line.

A contact foul after the ball is dead is either incidental or a technical (ignoring airborne shooter situations).

He is just pointing out what the poe should have said.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

He is just pointing out what the poe should have said.

Maybe it could have said that, but it would be irrelevant. I think you two are giving the person who wrote that too much credit. I think they meant what it says. The context and tone of the rest of it supports that.

In any case, even if it did mean to say that, it would still be wrong.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Maybe it could have said that, but it would be irrelevant. I think you two are giving the person who wrote that too much credit. I think they meant what it says. The context and tone of the rest of it supports that.

In any case, even if it did mean to say that, it would still be wrong.

The first sentence of the relevant part set forth above says contact more than incidental is a personal foul. The third sentence says technical foul. I think it is clear they meant to say contact after the shot is missed is technical. (they could just be knuckleheads)

The POE is wrong because there is no rule which says crossing FT line is a violation. However, if we accept that there is going to be such a rule, the way Bob has amended the POE would be correct and a true statement. Crossing the line and making more than incidental contact while FT in air/has chance to go in is personal foul. Contact after shot is clearly not successful is ignored unless intentional or flagrant(technical).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The first sentence of the relevant part set forth above says contact more than incidental is a personal foul. The third sentence says technical foul. I think it is clear they meant to say contact after the shot is missed is technical. (they could just be knuckleheads)

And that is wrong.

Originally Posted by BigCat

The POE is wrong because there is no rule which says crossing FT line is a violation. However, if we accept that there is going to be such a rule, the way Bob has amended the POE would be correct and a true statement. Crossing the line and making more than incidental contact while FT in air/has chance to go in is personal foul. Contact after shot is clearly not successful is ignored unless intentional or flagrant(technical).

The red statement is correct.
But that isn't what it said. It said that contact after the ball is dead is a technical if it isn't incidental. It takes more than not being incidental, as you properly stated, to become a technical.

The statement can't be made right by changing just one or two words. It is wrong in too many ways. It was just published without thinking.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that is wrong.


The red statement is correct.
But that isn't what it said. It said that contact after the ball is dead is a technical if it isn't incidental. It takes more than not being incidental, as you properly stated, to become a technical.

The statement can't be made right by changing just one or two words. It is wrong in too many ways. It was just published without thinking.

you're right. it is a complete mess..

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was just published without thinking.

Bingo.

[OKREF]

I asked our state rules interpreter about this. His response is the following.

There are times when the rules corrections/changes aren't updated in the rule book. With that said, we have to defer to the POE as it clarifies the intent of the rule. The POE is an extension of rule 9-1-3g. POE's are situations the NFHS wants us to look more closely at.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I asked our state rules interpreter about this. His response is the following.

There are times when the rules corrections/changes aren't updated in the rule book. With that said, we have to defer to the POE as it clarifies the intent of the rule. The POE is an extension of rule 9-1-3g. POE's are situations the NFHS wants us to look more closely at.

But this was not an announced change? It is not about updating, this was never an announced change. The POE came out of nowhere on this one.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But this was not an announced change? It is not about updating, this was never an announced change. The POE came out of nowhere on this one.

Now we have the necessary NFHS rule, and penalty, citations to accompany this Point of Emphasis:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post967790

Case closed.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Case closed.

Hope so, but remember that I got this from an unattributable source who said he knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy's cousin who got this from his local interpreter who said he got it from IAABO who that guy said they got it from NFHS.
I still haven't seen anything from any official NFHS source.
Looks official.
You IAABO adherents get that same thing?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

You IAABO adherents get that same thing?

Our first meeting is Wednesday, October 14, 2015.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But this was not an announced change? It is not about updating, this was never an announced change. The POE came out of nowhere on this one.

Peace

And we've been told to follow the POE

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

And we've been told to follow the POE

The POE that had a major mistake in it? And your state just blindly was going to follow it. Doesn't speak well for those in charge in OK.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

And we've been told to follow the POE

So what are you going to do next year if the rule does not reflect this year's POE?

Are you going to be following POEs of year's past?

Peace

[BryanV21]

Why are you attacking OKREF for doing what he's been told to do? Shouldn't we all be doing what we're told to do?

How about becoming part of the solution instead of reiterating the problem that we all know exists?