New '16/17 Casebook Arrived

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Helped the table know whether the basket counted or not.

I liked the mechanic.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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

So we're going with the NBA mechanic here?

Here's what I love about this board. I'm kind of a rules guru, but I must admit I've NEVER sat down and compared PY books LINE BY LINE to look for any unannounced changes like this.

Our associations first meeting of the season will be in about 3 weeks. The powers that be will of course go through the rule changes and points of emphasis as they always do at the first meeting. When they open it up, things like this that I glean from this board make me look even smarter than I already am.

THANKS EVERYONE!!

[RefBob]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

MTD, Sr.

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)

I'm somwhat confused here. If new 9.12B is referring to to a goaltending violation by A2, why doesn't B get two free throws and the ball for a division line throw-in under 10-3-9, Penalty?

Camron Rust also raises some interesting questions about why new 9.12B calls for a side line throw-in at the free throw lane line extended. As Camron noted, this seems to be contradicted by Rule 9-1, Penalty 1.a.

[Texas Aggie]

Like we did thirty-five years ago?

It was actually 28!

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

With so many elements (rules and other cases) still declaring the throwin spot to be as it has always been, this can only be an error that should be corrected.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

I am hoping that when they release the annual interps in about a month that this will be corrected.

In fact, I am certain that I will see a correction, even if it's "written" in white ink on white paper (or, to be inclusive, black ink on black paper)

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

I started in late 80's and the FT line extended was throw in location for several incidents (don't remember them all).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mregor

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

I don't even know what that means.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

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

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

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.

Two apologies in advance: (1) The numerous quotes. (2) Billy, I am sorry for not making this post sooner.

The thing to remember is that 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. The spot of the throw-in is to insure to everyone concerned is that it was a dead ball that passed through the basket and that no points were scored.

Since this rule change is to a rule that was enforced during the Ancient Days, I guess one could say that (a) "Time is a flat circle." Or, (b) That the circle of life has been completed. Or, (c) What goes around comes around.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I wonder if anyone will get the reference: "Time is a flat circle."

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...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

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

My nomination for "Post O' The Month".