Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 989927)

Helped the table know whether the basket counted or not.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 989881)

SNIP

UNANNOUNCED CHANGES:

2.2.4A (Added the underlined words to last year's citation): The score is Team A-62 and Team b-61 when the horn sounds to end the fourth quarter. Prior to the referee's approval of the final score, the coach of Team A directs obscene gestures at the officials. RULING: A technical foul is charged for unsporting behavior and the result of the free throws will determine which team wins or whether an extra period is required.

3.3.2A Grammatical revision: changed the words "...the number for each team member is 'erroneously indicated'" to "the number for each team member is 'incorrect'".

Old 3.5.7A, dealing with compression shorts, cut-off jeans, jewelry, and leg compression sleeves omitted, and old 3.5.7B, dealing with tights or skirt for religious reasons, were omitted . . . in favor of:

New 3.5.7 SITUATION: Substitute A6 is beckoned and enters the court to replace A1. A6 is wearing: (a) a bracelet, (b) an earring covered with tape or (c) earhole spacer. RULING: The items in (a), (b) and (c) are illegal and considered jewelry and A6 will not be allowed to participate while wearing the items. No penalty is involved. A6 simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed.

Old 9.12B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: The ball became dead immediately when A2 moved into the lane prematurely. Therefore, the goaltending is ignored. The lane violation cancels the free throw and Team B will throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line. (9-1 Penalty 1)

New 9.12B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored A2's actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

Old 10.1.9 stated in the RULING: A technical foul is immediately charged to Team B for failing to have all players return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission . . .

Same situation's ruling this year, renumbered as 10.2.5, removes the words "at approximately the same time".


That's all I could find. Anything else worthy of note you uncover, I'd appreciate hearing from you on it.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 989889)

So we're going with the NBA mechanic here?

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 989926)

The Casebook said that A2 committed "a" Violation, and in this instance the Violation was Offensive Goaltending.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 989933)

I think the old case was a left over from when players had to wait until the ball hit to enter the lane. It should have been updated when entry was changed to the release but it was missed.
They changed that, but they also changed the throwin spot for the infraction at the same time.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 990846)

So, what do we teach? Are we assuming this sideline throw-in spot in new 9.12B is erroneous, thus not to be regarded? Will a further "Interpretation" correct the error, or shall we teach that 9.12B is correct?
I'm ignoring it until further official word.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 990846)

So, what do we teach? Are we assuming this sideline throw-in spot in new 9.12B is erroneous, thus not to be regarded? Will a further "Interpretation" correct the error, or shall we teach that 9.12B is correct?
I'm ignoring it until further official word.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 989927)

Combination to memory vault cracked . . . I now vividly recall this distinction . . . back in the late '70's and early '80's this indeed was the approved mechanic. Helped the table know whether the basket counted or not.
Now, I guess, the difference would be shown by whether the administering official signaled for a designated spot throw in or a "you may run the endline if you wish" throw in.

Originally Posted by Mregor (Post 990904)

I started in late 80's and the FT line extended was throw in location for several incidents.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 990921)

Sounds like someone who updated the case play was asleep for over 25 years since that was the last time the interpretation would have been correct.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 989907)

Without climbing up into the attic, the Ball was taken out-of-bounds on the Sideline at the Free Throw Line Extended when a Dead Ball would go through the Basket immediately following a violation committed by a team in it's Front Court.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 989918)

I don't even know what that means.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 989919)

Two examples:

Play 1: A1 commits a Traveling Violation during a FGA and his attempt goes through the basket.

Play 2: A2 commits a FT Violation during A1's FTA and A1's attempt goes through the basket.

In both Plays, the attempt is canceled because of the Violation. By having the ensuing Throw-in taken on the Sideline rather than the End Line (if that would have been the closet spot to the Violation) indicates that it was a Dead Ball that went through the basket and the score does not count.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 989926)

The Casebook said that A2 committed "a" Violation, and in this instance the Violation was Offensive Goaltending.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 989929)

It goes back to the 1960s and I pretty sure the 1950s.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 990909)

For all offensive free throw violations when it was the last free throw and the free throw went in. From the Cadillac position, it was always on the right sideline of the free throw shooter. As Freddy stated earlier, it helped the table know whether the free throw counted, or not.

I can't recall if the mechanic was used for all offensive field goal basket interference and/or goaltending violations when the ball went in the basket. I'm pretty sure that it was used for these violations, but I'm not positive. Help us out here Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Make that long trip up to your attic officiating library.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 990921)

Sounds like someone who updated the case play was asleep for over 25 years since that was the last time the interpretation would have been correct.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 991025)

...when a team in control of the ball in its frontcourt commits a violation which is immediately followed by a dead ball passing through its basket, the throw-in spot is at the free-throw line extended on the sideline closest to where the violation occurred

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 991029)

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this. This is "back in the old days", not applicable to today in the Internet Age, right? The reason I ask is that if the NFHS is steering toward this once again, changing 9.12B by an unannounced rule change isn't exactly the best way to enact it.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 991030)

And when has the concept ever stopped the NFHS from using an unannounced rule change.