New '16/17 Casebook Arrived

[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".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

MTD, Sr.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My nomination for "Post O' The Month".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.