Casebook play 9.2.2 Question.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'm going with a five second count. The player doesn't have to be out of bounds or even have the ball for us to start counting.

The one exception is the 3A varsity assigner who wants us to tell the players on this play and "correct" it for them. i.e. we get the ball and then pass it to them for a throw-in. The league is on the same page so I'm just going with whatever my assigner wants.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

No you don't. You do the correct thing and tell your assigner that the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee is very clear as to how this play is to be handled.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Dad

Correct thing for who? The league would go right on doing what it's doing. I on the other hand would lose $120 nights and 3A votes.

Originally Posted by Adam

Sorry, Mark. We all have to answer to the people who assign us games. This is no exception. While you could certainly bring the play to the assigner's attention, if he's not convinced, you need to call it his way if you want games.

No one here gets games from the NFHS.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That would be incorrect....both going with the 5 count AND correcting the players.

The entire point of the case play is that it is a violation as soon as the team moves up the court bypassing the throwin for failing to execute the throwin from OOB.

The 2nd goal in the case is just a distraction.

Dad has stated that he officiates in a H.S. league in which the league assigner has instructed the officials to not follow the NFHS Rules and Casebook Plays with respect to the situation that we are discussing. I took the position that officials are ethically and professionally obligated to conduct the game per the rules. Some posters have taken me to task because I advocated doing the correct thing rather than doing what the assigner wanted.

We are professionals and our code of ethics requires to apply the rules and casebook plays correctly, and to knowingly do otherwise is unethical conduct.

I have nothing further to say because there is nothing else that anybody can say.

MTD, Sr.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Dad has stated that he officiates in a H.S. league in which the league assigner has instructed the officials to not follow the NFHS Rules and Casebook Plays with respect to the situation that we are discussing. I took the position that officials are ethically and professionally obligated to conduct the game per the rules. Some posters have taken me to task because I advocated doing the correct thing rather than doing what the assigner wanted.

We are professionals and our code of ethics requires to apply the rules and casebook plays correctly, and to knowingly do otherwise is unethical conduct.

I have nothing further to say because there is nothing else that anybody can say.

MTD, Sr.

I completely understand your opinion, however I also understand the position of others. The NFHS, well they do write the rules and indicate how said rules will be enforced and interpreted, does not pay my bills. I, as an official, need to balance doing things according to what is right, and doing things according to the way the governing body wants things called. I personally, would not be enforcing things the way the NFHS wants if it were to cost me hundreds or thousands of dollars, and was a non-safety related issue. Now if it were a safety issue, then I would be making a much bigger issue.

As with all things in life, there are battles you choose to fight, and battles you let the other side win. Very few wars have ever concluded with one side winning every battle. The war is getting the games called in the best manner possible. This battle may not be something worth fighting in the short term, but is something to discuss in the long term.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Dad has stated that he officiates in a H.S. league in which the league assigner has instructed the officials to not follow the NFHS Rules and Casebook Plays with respect to the situation that we are discussing. I took the position that officials are ethically and professionally obligated to conduct the game per the rules. Some posters have taken me to task because I advocated doing the correct thing rather than doing what the assigner wanted.

We are professionals and our code of ethics requires to apply the rules and casebook plays correctly, and to knowingly do otherwise is unethical conduct.

I have nothing further to say because there is nothing else that anybody can say.

MTD, Sr.

I'm with you except that you're confused as to who ultimately gets to set the rules.

The NFHS sets the model rules, but the teams playing the game hire the referees and they get to set the rules. For the most part, they tell us to use the NFHS rules, but when they say otherwise (for example, OHSAA saying we are not to use the team control signal) we enforce the rules of the competition as set by the organizing association.

So if a league says that want this situation dealt in this way, you are ethically obligated to either deal with it this way or turn down the assignment. What the NFHS wants really doesn't enter into it.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

We are professionals and our code of ethics requires to apply the rules and casebook plays correctly, and to knowingly do otherwise is unethical conduct.

Making this a moral issue is a bit....

So are you calling every travel when officiating for a disabled school?

or not following...

"Member associations of the NFHS independently make decisions regarding compliance with or modification of these playing rules for the student-athletes in their respective states."

Or the whole being cooperative with different associations.

I can respect your take on that matter, but that's for you, and by no means a moral values issues on an individual basis.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Dad has stated that he officiates in a H.S. league in which the league assigner has instructed the officials to not follow the NFHS Rules and Casebook Plays with respect to the situation that we are discussing. I took the position that officials are ethically and professionally obligated to conduct the game per the rules. Some posters have taken me to task because I advocated doing the correct thing rather than doing what the assigner wanted.

We are professionals and our code of ethics requires to apply the rules and casebook plays correctly, and to knowingly do otherwise is unethical conduct.

I have nothing further to say because there is nothing else that anybody can say.

MTD, Sr.

There's almost always more to be said, but turning this into some sort of ethical issue is over the top, Mark. Calling an official unethical because he or she follows the wishes of those who set the procedures and policies for the area is over the top and inappropriate.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

There's almost always more to be said, but turning this into some sort of ethical issue is over the top, Mark. Calling an official unethical because he or she follows the wishes of those who set the procedures and policies for the area is over the top and inappropriate.

The phrase "lighten up, Francis" comes to mind.

What we do is officiate a game. I'm as serious about it as one should be in this endeavor, but I'm not curing cancer.

[Adam]

The key to the case play, IMO, is not the fact that B makes a basket. The point was to resolve a debate over when to call the violation, and it is to be called as soon as it's clear the new offensive team has no intention of making a correct throw in.

They added the piece about B making a basket in order to ensure we don't credit b with the score because we think it's too late to correct.

[bob jenkins]

This play wsa discussed with some fervor many many years ago on this forum.

Some said "start the 5-second count." (That was my vote, iirc.)

Some said "immediate violation."

Some said "reset the play."

The next year (again, iirc), the NFHS came out with the interp that's in the case play -- immediate violation. So, that's how I'll call it if it ever comes up in one of my games.

[SNIPERBBB]

Nothing wrong with starting the count. An older case book play stated that once it became obvious that the offense would not be able to complete a legal throw-in that the violation is to be called.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

The key to the case play, IMO, is not the fact that B makes a basket. The point was to resolve a debate over when to call the violation, and it is to be called as soon as it's clear the new offensive team has no intention of making a correct throw in.

They added the piece about B making a basket in order to ensure we don't credit b with the score because we think it's too late to correct.

So much easier, for me, to just start the five second count. I don't want to call a violation because one player is screwing up. A1 passes to A2 who then runs out of bounds to pass it in telling A1 they messed up. Or A1 passes it to A2 and A3 runs over to say hey you need to get out of bounds before throwing it in. I can imagine problems with blowing a whistle judging intent. I've never had or seen anything go wrong with starting the five second count and then calling a violation if the team doesn't fix it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

So much easier, for me, to just start the five second count. I don't want to call a violation because one player is screwing up. A1 passes to A2 who then runs out of bounds to pass it in telling A1 they messed up. Or A1 passes it to A2 and A3 runs over to say hey you need to get out of bounds before throwing it in. I can imagine problems with blowing a whistle judging intent. I've never had or seen anything go wrong with starting the five second count and then calling a violation if the team doesn't fix it.

I'd wait and see where A2 goes with it once he receives the pass. A3 won't get the chance to fix it.

The NFHS seems (to me) to have made it clear they just want us to call the violation rather than wait 5 seconds for the inevitable.

Your way isn't bad, unless B is running a press. What if A2 travels or double dribbles? Everyone is going to wonder why you didn't call that only to call a throw-in violation 3-4 seconds later. I think it avoids confusion.

If A1 steps towards OOB, but never makes it before throwing up court, would you just keep counting to 5? If B2 fouls A2 going up for a shot while you're at 4 in your count?

Too many odd variables that get avoided if you just call the violation when it's clear they aren't going to do it right. No need to judge intent or read minds, it's pretty clear from their actions.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'd wait and see where A2 goes with it once he receives the pass. A3 won't get the chance to fix it.

The NFHS seems (to me) to have made it clear they just want us to call the violation rather than wait 5 seconds for the inevitable.

Your way isn't bad, unless B is running a press. What if A2 travels or double dribbles? Everyone is going to wonder why you didn't call that only to call a throw-in violation 3-4 seconds later. I think it avoids confusion.

If A1 steps towards OOB, but never makes it before throwing up court, would you just keep counting to 5? If B2 fouls A2 going up for a shot while you're at 4 in your count?

Too many odd variables that get avoided if you just call the violation when it's clear they aren't going to do it right. No need to judge intent or read minds, it's pretty clear from their actions.

Yeah, I lied, mostly. I'm always starting a five second count, but not necessarily finishing it. There's been times where I've blown a play dead before finishing my count. Maybe a better way to put it is I'm not blowing a violation just because A1 doesn't step OOB before throwing the ball in.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Dad

Yeah, I lied, mostly. I'm always starting a five second count, but not necessarily finishing it. There's been times where I've blown a play dead before finishing my count. Maybe a better way to put it is I'm not blowing a violation just because A1 doesn't step OOB before throwing the ball in.

I always start the 5-second count as soon as the ball is at the team's disposal for throw-in, but as Adam said, will also whistle the violation as soon as it's clear they aren't going to make a legal throw-in.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Dad

So much easier, for me, to just start the five second count. I don't want to call a violation because one player is screwing up. A1 passes to A2 who then runs out of bounds to pass it in telling A1 they messed up. Or A1 passes it to A2 and A3 runs over to say hey you need to get out of bounds before throwing it in. I can imagine problems with blowing a whistle judging intent. I've never had or seen anything go wrong with starting the five second count and then calling a violation if the team doesn't fix it.

...and if B steals a pass and scores during your 5-second count?

[BryanV21]

By the looks of things I was wrong to say to start a 5-second count.

Oh well... not my first mistake, and not my last.