New '16/17 Casebook Arrived
 

Just came yesterday. A line-by-line comparison of this year's casebook and last season's:

ERRORS:
The errors in last year's edition (previously poor wording in 3.5.3B and 3.5.4) were corrected.
Error (scrambled wording) remains in last year's 4.19.3E:
A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt. A3 and B4 are in the lane. (a) A3 throws B4 to the floor; (b) B4 throws A3 to the floor. RULING: In (a) illegal and in (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live.

ANNOUNCED CHANGES:
The ones they told us to expect seemed to all be accounted for. The "Comments..." on the revisions on pp.3-4 matched what was printed in the text of the book and they parallel what we were told in advance.

TECHNICAL FOUL SECTIONS REVISION:
Reordered the numbering to reflect rulebook revision numbering. "Ejection" situation moved.

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.

So we're going with the NBA mechanic here?

This would be a rule change, not a mechanic change. The rules designate the location of the throwin. Mechanics designate which official administers it, how, and where the other officials go.

That said, I don't know why or how they could justify this without a corresponding rule change. Both the ball and the location of the infraction were in the key. The nearest spot is the endline.

Since the ball was dead in this play as soon as the violation occurred, the rest of the case about goaltending is not relevant when discussing how to administer the penalty for the lane violation. Are they now saying that all offensive FT violations should be taken to the sideline? If so, what about other violations by the offense that occur in the lane? Are they moved too? If not, what makes them different?

There would not be a lane violation on the play, but yes, your point still stand.

Am I Right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ...
 

Like we did thirty-five years ago?

Note: Which sideline?

You are correct in that it isn't a lane violation....correcting that in my post.

I was apparently distracted by the fact that the old case was referring to a lane violation (incorrectly since entry was allowed on the release).

It seems in correcting that part of the case, they also changed the administration of the penalty as if it occurred outside of the lane for some inexplicable reason.

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.

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.

This doesn't say A2 entered the lane prior to shot being released. So why is it a violation? It would be a goaltending wouldn't it?

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

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.

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.

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

MTD, Sr.

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.