New '16/17 Casebook Arrived

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are they now saying that all offensive FT violations should be taken to the sideline?

Like we did thirty-five years ago?

Note: Which sideline?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Like we did thirty-five years ago?

Note: Which sideline?

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.

[Raymond]

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.

I don't even know what that means.

[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.

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

[Freddy]

Another "Error Not Corrected":
7.5.7E should refer us to 6-7-7 Exception c, but not Exception 2. There is no such thing as Exception 2 under 6-7-7.
I think.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

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

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Helped the table know whether the basket counted or not.

I liked the mechanic.

[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.

[Stat-Man]

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.

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?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

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?

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.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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 Stat-Man

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?

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.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.