Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Quoting an incorrect ruling in the Case Book doesn't help your cause. You might as well cite the infamous backcourt interp!
|
We've had this debate before. Like it or not, the published NFHS interpretation is that the error occurs when the officials allow play to continue, which they do by letting players enter the lane to rebound during the free throw when there is no team control. So Team B getting the rebound is the first possession. This is why in the case play, when the error is discovered with Team B still in control, no change in possession has occurred.
I do agree with you that pending possession is assumed for CE purposes (i.e. the violation in the OP case, and your AP arrow example was also spot-on). Several case plays support this assumption.
By the way, the case play you claim is "incorrect" has been around a lot longer than three years. I remember being stumped by it as a rookie before the '97-'98 season. Perhaps they removed it for a few years, but if so, it had enough staying power to make a comeback. It is a good interpretation; just because it's counterintuitive doesn't give you the authority to declare it incorrect and confuse the multitude of younger officials who use this site to study and learn, especially this time of year.
Note: I realize that just the other day I disagreed with the "likely tenths of a second" interp. Go ahead, lay it on me.... But hey, at least that play is an old interp that was never re-issued nor transitioned to the case book. What I'm talking about here is a firmly established and published case play.
Mon Nov 09, 2015, 07:52pm
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
