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

From this year's POE #3: "On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard."

I love this rule. It used to be the rule 30 years ago. Can anybody cite this rule for me?

There is no rule, but you cannot displace the shooter.

Peace

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.

(The NFHS handbook is a treasure trove of historical rule information. Love the digital access I got with my NFHS membership. BTW, the alternating possession arrow is 30 years old this year -- it was adopted in 1985-86, two years before I started officiating HS basketball.)

I'm not bothered at all about it. I'll simply call a violation and point at the POE if asked.

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

+1.

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.

"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.

Is this just in basketball? :eek:

Just kidding. :p

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.”

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

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

Free Throw Restriction ...
 

I feel the same way. It looks like the infamous "IAABO (Peter Webb) Interpretation" (from last season) of this situation made it into the NFHS Points Of Emphasis, but didn't make it into the actual rulebook:

NFHS 2015-16 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. FREE THROW SHOOTER

Rule 9-1-3g was revised in 2014-15 to allow a player occupying a marked lane space to enter the lane on the release of the ball by the free thrower. As a result of this change, protection of the free thrower needs to be emphasized. On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line extended into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

Maybe there will be a case play that will explain this further?

(Note: IAABO is red boldfaced below to emphasize that these are IAABO interpretations from last season, not NFHS interpretations.)

From January/February 2015 IAABO Sportorial Magazine:

Violation if a player legally enters the free throw lane and then breaks the outside edge of the free throw line, with a foot/feet, prior to the ball contacting the backboard or basket ring. Display the delay lane violation signal, pending successful or unsuccessful free throw.

From IAABO Board 403, Catawba River (South Carolina) Basketball Officials Association, Play of the Week, from last season:

Play #2 - A-1 is attempting a free throw. After A-1 releases the ball, B-4, from a marked lane space, boxes out A-1 by stepping across the free throw line before the ball contacts the ring and making incidental contact with the shooter. The free throw is unsuccessful. The Center official rules a violation on B-4 and awards A-1 a substitute free throw. Was the official correct?
Answer: The official was correct. The rule change this season allows players in marked lane spaces to enter the lane upon the release of the free throw. However, no player may penetrate the free throw line in either direction until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. (References: Rule 9.1.3g, NFHS Interpretation)

Or, maybe we'll be debating this situation for another entire season.

To paraphrase the late Jurassic Referee: Stupid IAABO. Stupid NFHS. Stupid monkeys.

While you're wringing your hands over this, I'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

+1

But will you (by POE) call it a violation, or (by rule) call nothing unless a foul is committed?

The NF is not infallible For God's sake. They clearly made a mistake. Just move on if you ask me. People kill me as if they cannot use some common sense in these situations.

Peace

OK, then which way are you calling it? It is a valid question. Either option could make sense.

Or, do by "move on if you ask me" mean you're going to ignore it?

What does the rule say?

There is your answer. I do not give a darn what a POE says that will be gone the following year.

To me this what like when the NF several years ago used the term "moving screen" in their wording in a POE but never mentioned how that was not a rulebook term or even applied to the rule. Then the next year the POE was gone and the rule never was changed. Funny we have not heard or seen that kind of wording about screens sense.

Peace

Fed did this to us in baseball a couple of years ago. POE to call balk for pitching from the "combination position" (half way between stretch and wind up) with no change in rule. One of the combination cases was already illegal, the other was completely legal.

Fed changes the rule the next year to align with the POE.

I'll call a violation if it feels like it needs to be called. How's that? :)

First time it happens, tell the kid not to do it. Tell the coach that it is a violation and that the POE says to call it one. After that, I doubt it will happen again, if it does, call a violation and it will stop.

I want more direction from my state before I do such a thing. Otherwise the POE is like it does not exist.

Peace

First time what happens? He crosses that line? He crosses that line and makes illegal contact with the shooter?

Because it's going to be pretty hard to cross that line without making contact.

Disagree. I do agree that it will be hard to make contact without crossing the line.

And, I sure hope there's a clarifying play or two in the annual interps that come out about mid-November. Until then, I won't really give it much thought.

Nevermind... i posted without thinking. My bad....

Well most FT shooters are close to the line. So unless they back up immediately after the shot, they are going to be standing right over the line. So there is likely to be some kind of contact and if you wish you can call a foul and stop all that mess.

Peace

Sounds good to me.

This sounds like a really bad idea. If I'm the coach, and you're telling me you saw a violation and didn't call it, then who's to say what other violations you're seeing and not calling.... for my team.

Perhaps you're referring to lower level games, where you may be a little lax on the rules, but there's no way I'm doing that in a varsity contest.

I'm not telling the coach anything, regardless of how I handle it.

You act as though we have huge rule discussions with coaches on the court. I've probably worked over 1000 varsity contests over the last 20 years and this doesn't cause me one bit of angst. Call it...or don't call it....and move on.

What are talking about? "Huge rule discussions"? I'm just saying that I'm not going to tell a coach that I saw a violation and didn't call it, because if the other coach hears me say that he's probably going to take issue with it (and rightfully so). So why open up that can of worms?

I think the purpose of the POE is to get in line with the violation for crossing over the 3 point line and into the free throw semi circle prior to the ball hitting the rim. What the POE is effectively saying is, its a violation to enter the free throw semi circle from both behind the 3 point line and from crossing over the free throw line. Just for what its worth, we were told at a camp in June that this is a violation and it needed to be called.

Are they instructing you to ignore the contact?

Why do you need to tell the coach anything? Do you tell them something everything you call a violation they do not like?

Peace

What is going on?

In my first post I said that I would never tell a coach that I didn't call a violation, but would call it next time. And somehow that got twisted into me having "huge rule discussions" with coaches, and now I'm getting interrogated about telling coaches anything.

Let's try again...

I'm NOT telling the coaches anything. I'm ESPECIALLY not telling them that I saw a violation and did not call it... Which is what OKREF said, and I replied to.

I did not say anything about having a huge discussion, that was someone else. But if I call or do not call something, I am not having a discussion with the coach as to why. And I am not going to talk about why I did or did not do something earlier.

Peace

This post comes off as you being critical of Bryan. You are questioning him on telling the coach something. He said he is not talking to the coach. He is/was the first one in the thread to say, in response to a comment, that he wont talk to the coach. Read back a few posts and you will see that..

I didn't say you brought up the "huge discussion" thing. I was pointing out how my original post was being twisted.

Anyway... I agree. And looking at my replies I think that's apparent.

Actually I was not criticism him about anything. I just stated we do not need to have much discussion with a coach after we make a call and quoted his comments to make that point. If that is a criticism of him personally, then either he is going to have to get thicker skin or get over it. I was making a comment that I felt was relevant to my position about this topic. I do not know Bryan personally enough to know his overall position or to know how strong he feels about this topic.

Oh and I read the situation the first time, it sounds like some people need to not take every comment so personally. People disagree with me here often about things, it is not that big of a deal when they do.

Peace

Is this on "Ohio thing?" ;)

I did not suggest you said I said anything. I was just commenting on the thread and using words that were used previously.

Peace

Ah. Responding to me made it seem like you were accusing me.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

No, as of right now, call the violation, if there is contact call the foul. This may change, but for now this is it.

Accuse you of what? :eek:

Peace

Talking to coaches when it's not necessary.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

That is an accusation? Or is that just a statement of what I feel you (not you personally BTW) should not do?

Peace

OK... Accusation is a strong word. Yes, just saying I shouldn't talk to them.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Again it was a philosophy related to this and other things we call, I do not recall that it was just about you. There are a lot of officials that feel they have to justify or explain to coaches what they call and if a coach is not on board with the call that explanation is something required. I just do not go along with that position. Now if that is not your position, then not sure why you would care what I had to say if that is not your position.

You sound a little sensitive on this honestly. This was really not about you but the thought process that has been suggested hear by many for years.

Peace

I thought it was about me because you quoted me.

For the record, I don't like talking to coaches, so I only do it if I have to.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Quoting someone does not mean the comments or responses are just about you. Your comments were about the topic. Again, you really need to not be so sensitive. And did I misquote you? These were your words. If you did not want anyone to say anything about them, then why did you say them?

Peace

I didn't know my post was going to cause all of this. I wasn't saying I explain every call to a coach, and on this topic what I was really meaning to say was if the coach asked me about it, then I would talk to him/her. I'm not explaining to just be doing it.

I've been going to message boards for as long as the internet was a thing. You only quote somebody if you are referring to them. Otherwise, find the person you want to refer to and quote them, or there's a button for a general reply below.

I'm not sensitive, I'm confused as to why you replied to me when you were apparently talking about someone else.

Misquote? No. I didn't say I was talking to coaches. I said what I WOULDN'T say to a coach and it was twisted.

With that said, I appreciate your advice on this board. Thank you.

Actually, on this subject it would irritate me if a coach asked about it. They are teaching their players to do this, so I don't want them playing dumb when I blow my whistle.

Let's see OKREF says he would talk to coaches after the violation. Bryan says he would not. You quote Bryan and use the word YOU: these are YOUR words

"Why do YOU need to tell the coach anything? Do YOU tell them something everything you call a violation they do not like?

Peace"

Sounds to me and likely many others that you are asking and implying that Bryan talks to the coaches. Bryan points out that he doesn't do that. You call him sensitive. if your reply was to OKREF there'd be no issue.

Bryan has tried to let it go a few times. You keep replying… and digging your hole deeper.

And I quote a lot of people in the context in the bigger conversation too. I do not always quote people just to challenge or highlight their statements alone. Now if you only quote people to only speak to them, I guess. I do not always do that neither does everyone else. I have been quoted many times to highlight other people's comments, my comments just happened to be the last one about the topic they read.

I really do not see why your panties are in a bunch about this. You said that is not what you meant or your position. I am not disputing what you said or even disputing your position. I take you at your word. I am not arguing that you said something and I "gotcha" with the quote. You do not even have to prove your position to me either. My advice or comments are not that deep. I was giving an opinion on a position previously stated, your comments happened to be about those comments and stated my position. It is not like your reputation is going to be ruined because I commented or took a position with you being quoted. The only way I can see your response to all of this is being sensitive. Sorry, but that is my take because I have said this many times before that this incessant need to talk to coaches about calls and I am suggesting this is over the top from my point of view. If that is not what you meant or feel, than consider yourself absolved from my comments. And if that is what you are saying, you have the right to disagree with my position. It is not as big of a deal as you are making it. No one is accusing you of anything. I am not in a position to accuse you of anything.

Peace

I keep replying because I can. No one is going to do anything to me either way. So not sure what hole I am digging? Even if I felt he said what he claims he has not said, what is going to happen? Nothing.

Peace

I do not know what Bryan is or isn't. If he is an official he has to get bigger skin or this is going to get a lot harder than what is said here. I work with kids that have much bigger ways to handle themselves and take the comments in stride. I will not shut up at all. If you do not like the post, you did not have to comment in the first place. ;)

Telling someone to shut up also is something we did in kindergarten too. :eek:

Peace

Sounds like a dispute between B1G 10 fans.

You"re right. BigCat calls for a truce. If we were all in the same room we'd say our piece and be done with it. thx

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

Please, save the drama fo you mama!!! Seriously.

Peace

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

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

Peace

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

Peace

50

Not me. I am closer to 37 than 50.

Peace

Probably referring to a Blarge. The ball remains live on a block/charge on a shot. It is actually a double foul, not a PC and a blocking foul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Now that we've established we're not children, can we all chill out?

Just do it...
 

I don't think its as complicated as some are making it. The rules say players may enter the "lane" on release. The semi-circle is NOT part of the lane. The POE is clarifying that when NFHS changed the rule they did not intend for players other than the shooter be in this space.

If the defender steps into the semi-circle I will call the violation, the first time and every time (assuming a missed shot of course). It is not that difficult to block out without crossing that line so they will have to adjust to how it is being called or continue to get violations.

As for contact, I called several fouls this last year when defenders displaced the free throw shooter. Coaches never liked it but if you move ANY player backwards out of their position during rebounding action it is by definition a foul.

But how can it be a foul (assuming it's not a flagrant)? As soon as the defender crosses the free throw line it's a violation, so a foul (again, assuming it's not flagrant) would be ignored.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Because I said so?????
 

The defender will most likely cross that line while the ball is in flight so the violation will be delayed to see if the basket is made. While the ball is in flight it is considered "live" so any contact that rises to the level above incidental but below flagrant/intentional would be a foul. However, like with all dead ball contact, if the contact does not occur until after the try has ended then it would be ignored unless deemed to be flagrant or intentional.

Seems odd that you could have a play be either a foul or a violation, not one or the other. But I hear you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So my question is: why is it a violation?

Maybe it has something to with a "stick up my butt" mentality, but that reply is simply too cavalier for me. Of course, we're all going to go work games. Nobody's turning back his schedule because (once again) we're instructed to call something that contradicts our rulebook.

But that doesn't do anything to decide exactly how to call this play. By rule, there's no violation for crossing the FT line before the try hits the ring or backboard. So why in the world would I call it?

And this is not a criticism of you personally, Rich. I think you know that I have tremendous respect for you, both on and off of this forum. I just can't bring myself to not care about this. It seems like a big deal to me.

Read earlier in this thread and you'll see why.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

OK, being serious for a moment.

I just think it's sloppy on the part of the NFHS. I think they missed the rule reference -- the POE makes it very clear that it's expected that this be a violation. They just didn't put the rule back into the rule book.

When they went back to the "on the release" I was stunned they didn't address this -- cause it was a rule when the "on the release" free throws were eliminated in the 1990s.

Actually, the rule doesn't even say they can't enter the lane until the release. It only says they can't leave their lane space until the release. There is no reference to which direction they leave it or where they go to. The rule has no restrictions on location once the ball is released (for players in a marked lane space).

All that said, I just noticed something interesting in the rule that does give support to the POE. Look at these other parts of the rule...

I have never considered it to be possible to disconcert after the ball has been released but the rules do allow for it. So, you could consider crossing the FT line to be disconcertion and have it supported by the rules. If so, it really isn't about what areas are restricted or not but really simply about interfering with the shooter during his protected time frame....disconcertion. Of course, if that is the case, a player doesn't even have to cross into the FT semi-circle to do that. :D

Stupid Monkeys (Jurassic Referee) ...
 

I also care about this. Maybe it's not a big deal to me, but it's still a deal.

"... Sloppy on the part of the NFHS"? None of us should act surprised (see team control/throwin/backcourt).

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.ydNC...=0&w=300&h=300

Nice citation Camron Rust. The plot thickens.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.BntS...=0&w=300&h=300

I've been following along the whole time, Bryan. My point is that it's NOT actually a violation, according the rules. That's what I'm getting at. Yet we're told in the POE to call a violation. Once again, we're being told to call the game contrary to the actual rules. This bothers me tremendously.

That's what this entire conversation is about. So I'm not sure why you're asking.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Since Cameron has now provided a rules basis for the interpretation perhaps the focus of this conversation should switch from should you call it (yes you should) to how it should be applied.

And if you are still on the fence about a player being disconcerted after the release, consider this: A players is stepping up to the line for his 10th free throw of the game (its been a rough one). As part of his routine he holds his follow-through for an extended period of time and remains focused until the ball hits the rim. During the first nine free throws he took a defender crosses the line and is in his space during this follow through process before the ball hits the rim. Could this disruption of the shooter's process be enough to disconcert him, causing him to adjust what he normally does and effectively taking away the advantage a free throw is supposed to award him? BTW, this would not apply to a regular shot because the same expectations for awarding the shooter an opportunity to take a shot without interference do not exist.

I can see this along with Cameron's rule reference as an argument for the POE.

And note that I originally was under the belief that there was no rule support for the POE but, someone inadvertently, discovered there actually is.

IMO disconcertion --to disturb or disrupt--- is a "cause and effect" situation. Defense does something that causes shooter to 1. miss the shot OR 2. otherwise violate. The obvious one-- the defender waves arms and we believe it disturbed shooter=disconcertion. Once the shot is in the air the things the defense does will not cause the shot to be missed.
However, we know the shooter cant cross line until ball hits ring. I suppose the defense can do something to cause the shooter to cross the line. So they can "disconcert" after the ball is in the air---although ive never see it or called it.

Here, if the defense crosses the free throw line it is not likely to cause the shot to be missed since the ball will likely be released already. It could possible cause the FT shooter to cross the line too soon. But if the ball is released on the shot, then defender crosses line and blocks shooter back a few feet the defender has not caused the shot to be missed or caused the FT shooter to violate. I dont see that as "disconcertion." The POE simply says crossing the line is a violation. I dont think that = disconcertion.

And just to add--if im shooting a Ft and the defender steps on the lane line before i release the ball he has violated. We put up delayed violation signal. If i shoot an air ball the official has to decide if defender stepping on the line cause my airball--did it disconcert me? If it didnt--i just cant shoot...then we have a double violation. I think this shows that disconcertion requires the defense to do something which "causes" the offense to miss shot or violate etc.

Good catch...is that new wording or has it been in there for a while? I have never noticed it.

Rule 9-1-4
 

In the 2014-15 Rule Interpretations found on the NFHS website and here on the forum, it says to delete Rule 9-1-4, page 55. Apparently, it was mistakenly left in the rule book when the free throw rule was changed back to the release.

9-1-3c-"No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower"was lumped in with 9-1-4 (the restictions in 9-1-3b through g apply until ball touches ring.....) in the old books. I dont think by removing 9-1-4 from the book they are making a change to disconcertion.--Before disconcertion meant until ball hits ring and now it means release--- I think they likely just realized it isnt necessary to say anything more than what 9-1-3c already says. You cant disconcert the free throw shooter. To me that means you cant do anything to cause him to miss the shot or to violate. FT shooter can violate until ball hits rim.

If the FT is in the air, then the defense steps over FT line and somehow that CAUSES the FT shooter to step on the line before ball hits rim...i think you can call that disconcertion. I dont think simply stepping over the line equals disconcertion but 9-1-3c is the closest support for it. I'd like for them to simply add the wording to the rule.

I do not understand why we are trying to play games with the rules based on what the rule "used to be." The rules at every other level had no such provision. We have not had this rule in place for well over a decade and now we are worried about what the rule was in 96-97 (My first year) before they made the change?

This is the epitome of silliness. This really is if you ask me. And the NF has not helped this by using wording that does not coincide with their current rules. This is too deep for me. I am just calling what the rules are now. There is no extra violation and I am not calling one just because it is in a POE.

Peace

Emphasize ...
 

Because, maybe, the NFHS wants to go back to the rule as it "used to be", as evidenced by this recent Point of Emphasis.

Agree 100%. This certainly puts officials, especially clinicians (like, I believe, JRutledge), trainers, and interpreters, "between a rock, and a hard place". Follow the Point of Emphasis, and contradict the rule; or follow the rule, and contradict the Point of Emphasis.

The NFHS doesn't even list a penalty for this Point of Emphasis: violation, technical foul, disqualification, double-secret probation (I assume violation, because that what the rule "used to be")?

Silly NFHS monkeys (with reverence for Jurassic Referee).

So, you're unilaterally not going to emphasize a NFHS Point Of Emphasis? Don't you believe that the NFHS is emphasizing something because they want it emphasized by officials?

According to Merriam Webster, emphasize means to give special attention, or importance, to something; so it seems apparent that the NFHS wants us to enforce the following:

"On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line extended into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard."

Do you believe that the NFHS wants us to ignore something that they clearly want emphasized?

Unilaterally ignoring the Point of Emphasis is not the answer. Seeking guidance from the NFHS, probably through one's state high school organization, or one's state officials organization, is the right way to approach this.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.2iTm...=0&w=300&h=300

As an IAABO member, in a 100% IAABO state, I already know what we'll be doing since we "jumped the gun" last year, and by "jumping the gun", I mean that we were wrong to do so. Now, we have, at least, some backing from the NFHS, a Point of Emphasis without, unfortunately, a rule backing.

Again, silly NFHS, and IAABO, monkeys.

Who knows (other than the NFHS)? In the end, JRutledge may come out on the right side of this debate. He has several good points (no pun intended), no written rule, no written penalty, no written casebook play interpretation, a Point of Emphasis that will "disappear" from the rulebook the following year, in his favor, but, somehow, I doubt that he'll come out on the side intended by the NFHS, otherwise, why would they publish a Point of Emphasis regarding this situation? On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my house on JRutledge being wrong here, maybe a hundred bucks, but not my house.

I wouldn't bet my house on anything published by the NFHS (see team control/throwin/backcourt). Wouldn't it be nice if the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor actually edited?

For the third time, silly NFHS monkeys.

Well then adopt that rule. It is not that hard.


It does not put me in any rock and and a hard place. The rules are clear, this is not a violation.

What rule is violated? There is your answer. I am not going to do anything but do what the rules says. I do not have POE sessions in games.

Glad you know the Webster definition. But irrelevant to this discussion.

I do not care what the NF does. I do not work for the NF. The NF has never given me a single game. They NF did not assign me to any post season or allow me to work any State Finals. I do not care what the NF intended. If they want people to do what they suggest, have a rule that supports their position.

Now if the IHSA wants to come out and give a statement or suggest we should enforce a rule that does not exist, then they better do better than the NF is doing in this case.

Not the answer for what? The NF has not changed their rules to reflect any such penalty or why it is illegal. It does not fall under any punishment that we have at our disposal. I do not see anything wrong with not enforcing something that is not a rule. They clearly made and editorial mistake and I will recognized it as such until further notice. Not the first time and certainly will not be the last.

Well good for you. I do not live in an IAABO state. I do not care what you guys or any one else in the country does. We will have rules meetings in our state and this will and can be addressed.

This is not about being right. This is about majoring in the minors. This is not something that most officials are even going to notice first of all. Most officials I am sure have no idea that the NF had the rule that even required this at some point and certainly do not see it at other levels. Even someone like myself just thought they were adopting the rules of the NCAA and NBA in this area.

All of this could be solved by changing a rule in midstream and saying "We made a mistake" or "We included a POE that did not fit the rules." Problem solved.

Peace

Do Editors Edit Anymore ???
 

Agree on all counts. Enforcing this "(POE) ruling", or ignoring this "(POE) ruling", should not involve unilateral decisions determined by individual officials. As I stated earlier, seeking guidance from the NFHS, probably through one's state high school organization, or one's state officials organization, is the right way to approach this. To have one individual official enforce this Point of Emphasis, thus ignoring the written rule, and to have another official ignore the Point of Emphasis, and only enforce the written rule, in the same league, in the same conference, or in the same state, is a recipe for disaster.

Coach: "Hey? Official Smith didn't do it that way Tuesday night."

Sad, but true.

I am only seeking guidance from the IHSA. I do not need to hear from the NF. If they NF decides they are going to give a statement, that is on them. Until then, only my state matters in this area.

I will say the same things I said for years.

"I do not care what you did Tuesday, this is what we are doing tonight."

Peace