The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 09, 2015, 11:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
My best guess is that someone, who is lacking in knowledge of the rules of basketball, was tasked with proof reading the rules before it went to print and said person thought that those two words were "incorrectly deleted" and decided to "reinsert" them.
Were those words *ever* there?

My guess was it came up in the 10 seconds context with an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about a shot that hit the backboard and went in or hit the backboard before the rim and a "what if" about the 10 seconds expiring in between. So this was a simple, fix the timing on it hitting *something* within 10 seconds, without realizing that the same rule was what mandated that the FT have contact with the rim to be valid. But clearly a guess.

BTW, in the real world, would anyone call the 10 second violation with the ball in the air at the 10 second mark, or do you really call it more like at 12 seconds for blatant violations? Just curious.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 09, 2015, 11:20am
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
BTW, in the real world, would anyone call the 10 second violation with the ball in the air at the 10 second mark
Oh. Hell. No.

Quote:
or do you really call it more like at 12 seconds for blatant violations? Just curious.
Not on the first or second one... maybe on the 3rd or 4th one after I'd warned both the player AND the HC about it.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 09, 2015, 11:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
Were those words *ever* there?

My guess was it came up in the 10 seconds context with an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about a shot that hit the backboard and went in or hit the backboard before the rim and a "what if" about the 10 seconds expiring in between. So this was a simple, fix the timing on it hitting *something* within 10 seconds, without realizing that the same rule was what mandated that the FT have contact with the rim to be valid. But clearly a guess.

BTW, in the real world, would anyone call the 10 second violation with the ball in the air at the 10 second mark, or do you really call it more like at 12 seconds for blatant violations? Just curious.
The FT requirement is to *release* the ball before 10 seconds (and then have it strike the ring / enter the basket). The ball does *not* need to strike the ring before 10 seconds.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 09, 2015, 12:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
The FT requirement is to *release* the ball before 10 seconds (and then have it strike the ring / enter the basket). The ball does *not* need to strike the ring before 10 seconds.
Doh! That would make my whole theory pretty stupid, wouldn't it . . .

T'would seem the confused editor is really the only logical explanation then, as it is inconceivable that they intended to make that change AND didn't think it was worthy of noting as a change.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 09, 2015, 01:05pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,047
I just heard back from Peter Webb. The addition of the two words or backboard was a mistake and the NFHS will be sending out a correction.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 09, 2015, 01:16pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
The problem is that 9-1 is the ONLY place in the rules for the requirement that (A) any free throw either be successful or strike the ring. It is mentioned in the Casebook in two places, but not in the rules. Add (B) "or backboard" and the rules have nowhere else that requirement (A) be met.

Solved now that the apparent correction from NFHS came out -- cf. other recent post.

Haven't seen that out on the NFHS website yet.

I hereby volunteer, with two other forum contributors of your choice, to serve on the new OPCBWOPTROC:
"Officials' Proofreading Committee before We Officially Print the Rulebook or Casebook."

Dear NFHS,
I do stuff like this at work and I'm fired. You have how many on your "Rules Committee"? I see the pictures of 13 in the front of my flawed rulebook. Errors like this are quite beneath any professional organization. You can do better than this. I'm here to help. Email me. And BillyMac.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 09, 2015, 05:20pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,952
No Compromise ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
Email me. And BillyMac.
In order for me to participate on this Proofreading Committee, I will require that the NFHS supply me with a dish of M&M's from which all the brown M&M's have been removed.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 05:29pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
9-9-1 Backcourt - Editorial Revision? Freddy Basketball 14 Thu Jun 19, 2014 08:01am
Timeout Revision stiffler3492 Basketball 1 Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:15am
NFHS Unannounced Rule Change BillyMac Basketball 1 Mon Oct 15, 2007 09:48pm
Figuring out the RPP revision Nevadaref Basketball 10 Fri Oct 12, 2007 06:00pm
Revision 7-5-7 BMA Basketball 9 Thu Aug 30, 2001 10:06pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1