Or even going directly against a clear and complete rule. In this case, the rule that says the throwin spot is the OOB point closest to the point of the infraction...with the only exceptions being that you move to the lane line extended if the infraction was in the lane or to the division line if the infraction is a technical foul.

And we do not even have Mary Struckhoff around to blame for this mess anymore, LOL!

MTD, Sr.

A mistake, inconsistency, or nothing?
 

MTDSr:

I finally got my rule/casebook set yesterday, so I was eager to go through to review the changes and this discussion item for myself.

Although Play 2 is covered by the revised case 9.12.B, Play 1 is covered by case 7.5.2.A (item a) where the ruling is to award the throw-in at the nearest spot. This implies that if the traveling violation occurs in the so-called "rocket-ship," the throw-in spot would be on the baseline and not the sideline at the FTLE.

Does this mean we only use the sideline FTLE for a final free throw attempt nullified by violation and nothing else? :confused:

My stance is that we should await word from the NFHS when they publish their annual "Interpretations" (usually mid-October, lately the platform for corrections on unintended revisions) to see if they admit to this as an error or not. If not, there's a lot of other stuff that mandates revising. Which is why I'm guessing this is an error.

Thanks, Freddy.

Given prior discussions here, NFHS has yet to fully clean up some of the back court/team control issues in the current rules, so I'm not sure I'd be optimistic that they clear up this new point of confusion & conflict. ;):D

I'd like to be proven incorrect, though. So, I'll join you with the wait & see approach.

Stat-Man:

I am not sure what the NFHS Rules Committee wants. My post, which you quoted, were examples of how the rule was applied in "The Ancient Days".

MTD, Sr.

MTDSr:

Thanks for the clarification. My original reading of the thread led me to believe the present-day rule changes were such that we were returning to that situation for both plays.

In the coming month, it will be interesting to see:

• If the NFHS issues any clarification or correction.
• What the powers-that-be (state bodies and/or association trainers) present in preseason rule meetings.

I'm just going to assume now that A2 was outside the 3 point arc during the FT and towards a sideline. He crossed the 3 line too soon. Violation occurred closer to the sideline than the endline....Sideline throw in...

If he was on the lane line during the FT I will take it on the end line.....

The old play referenced the lane. I don't have the new book yet (when will it be added to the Ebook area on nfhs site) but the way the new play is set out above it doesn't have that language. --(so I'm declaring he started outside the arc toward a sideline...)

So Called ???
 

Rocket Ship Diagram © 2009, Back In The Saddle

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7137/7...40b397d7_m.jpg