The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack (1) Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  1 links from elsewhere to this Post. Click to view. #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 12:09pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
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?
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 12:30pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
There is no rule, but you cannot displace the shooter.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 12:33pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
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?
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!
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 12:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich View Post
i stopped being pedantic about the rules about 10 years ago. Really liberating, you should try it!
+1.
__________________
in OS I trust
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:14pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:18pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post

I stopped being pedantic about the rules about 10 years ago. Really liberating, you should try it!
Is this just in basketball?

Just kidding.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:20pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post

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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:24pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:28pm
Official Fiveum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eurasia - no, Myasia
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
BTW, the alternating possession arrow is 30 years old this year --
__________________
I don't know what "signature" means.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:32pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:33pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
. . . 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?
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:34pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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.
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:37pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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.
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 14, 2015, 01:44pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
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.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1