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.

Cadillac Position ...
 

I liked the mechanic.

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!!

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.

It was actually 28!:D

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.

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)

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

Misty Water Color Memories ...
 

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.

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.

Nine-Pins ...
 

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."

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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Is Still As Sharp As A Tack ...
 

My nomination for "Post O' The Month".

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