2016-17 NFHS Interpretations

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Care to elaborate?

SITUATION 8, RULINGS (d) and (e) seem to be incorrect. Each error seems to have been discovered no later than the first dead ball after the clock had properly started. And the point of interruption to rectify the error would be a throw-in by A at a spot nearest the foul. Right?
(Edited...)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Freddy

SITUATION 8, RULINGS (d) and (e) seem to be incorrect, correct? Each seem to have been no later than the first dead ball after the clock had properly started.

The errors are within the correctable error time frame. The FTs can still be canceled. I'm assuming/guessing that the issue is with giving B the ball in d and e after canceling As FTs.

In the first correctable error play, i think, in case book 2.10 section team A is to get 2 shots. B rebounds the first FT and they play on. head to other end. play says B getting the rebound is not a "change of possession" so you go back and shoot As second FT and play from there.

Here, B is rebounding the FT that should have never taken place or inbounding the ball after the FTs that shouldn't have taken place. It is considered a change of possession. So A gets its two FTs cancelled and they don't get the opportunity to score after because the ball is going to B.

correctable errors are bad. If there's a screw up somebody is going to get…Here team A.

and...Now that I read C that may be his issue. When B1 grabs the ball for the throw in they have possession. i like the result better than d and e but it doesn't seem to follow the rule.

[Nevadaref]

Actually, I agree with d & e. However, as BigCat points out those are inconsistent with c, and even part b. Consult 2-10-6 and 4-36. You will see that 2-10-6 instructs the officials to resume at the POI and 4-36-2b tells us that POI includes when a team is entitled to a throw-in.

Therefore, BY RULE Team B should be awarded a throw-in following the correction of the error in both parts b and c of Situation 8.

The casebook play BigCat refers to is also incorrect as it fails to properly account for the POI and laughably states that the opposing team rebounding the missed FT and dribbling up the court isn't a change of possession. It clearly is.

I can understand if the NFHS desires Team A to get the ball back after having its unmerited FTs nullified. However, that isn't what the rules currently state, so the NFHS would need to make a change to the rules, if it wants that outcome.

[bob jenkins]

I am not certain that "POI" and "the point at which the game was stopped to correct the error" (or whatever the specific wording in in the book) are exactly synonymous.

I do agree that the case play BigCat referenced is wrong, but it's been wrong for even longer than the back-court fiasco. And, the definition of the terms and the rule could be clarified (but I think we need to be careful what we wish for.)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I am not certain that "POI" and "the point at which the game was stopped to correct the error" (or whatever the specific wording in in the book) are exactly synonymous.

I do agree that the case play BigCat referenced is wrong, but it's been wrong for even longer than the back-court fiasco. And, the definition of the terms and the rule could be clarified (but I think we need to be careful what we wish for.)

Bob,
Have you looked at the wording of 2-10-6 lately?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob,
Have you looked at the wording of 2-10-6 lately?

No. I don't have the books handy.

Edit: I see they have it as POI now, and include "CE" as one of the reasons to use POI in the POI definition.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. I don't have the books handy.

Edit: I see they have it as POI now, and include "CE" as one of the reasons to use POI in the POI definition.