2019-20 NFHS Interpretations

[Raymond]

"CASE BOOK CORRECTIONS: 3.5.4 SITUATION B (Page 23): Ruling for (c) should be Illegal Legal."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

"CASE BOOK CORRECTIONS: 3.5.4 SITUATION B (Page 23): Ruling for (c) should be Illegal Legal."

I was also initially confused, until I remembered that in previous posts Freddy told us that strikethroughs and underlining don't carry over from the NFHS website to the Forum.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was also initially confused, until I remembered that in previous posts Freddy told us that strikethroughs and underlining don't carry over from the NFHS website to the Forum.

Looks like Freddy has some work to do then.

[BillyMac]

... Fool me twice, shame on me.

SITUATION 8: During the pre-game warm-up, the officials observe that A4 is wearing a ring with tape covering it. The officials notify A’s head coach that A4 must remove the ring in order to participate in the pre-game warm-up and the game. The coach and A4 respond that the ring cannot physically be removed. RULING: The referee informs A’s head coach that A4 cannot participate while wearing a ring, even with the tape covering it. (3-5-7)

During my foolish years as a young adult, on two occasions I wore my wedding ring while playing basketball that resulted in major injuries (ring caught in outdoor metal net resulting in the ring cutting my finger to the bone, finger jammed that became swollen overnight with ring acting as a tourniquet).

[Raymond]

Billy, didn't we have a long discussion about this play or something similar?

"SITUATION 9: A1, while dribbling the ball in the frontcourt near the midcourt line, has the ball strike the midcourt line and as the ball comes up from the dribble, A1 touches the ball and continues to dribble. RULING: Backcourt violation. A1 may not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt, before it went to the backcourt. (9-9-1)"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Billy, didn't we have a long discussion about this play or something similar?

Great memory Raymond.

When I first started reading the interpretation, I said to myself, "Finally, a citation for that weird situation that we discussed many months ago on the Forum".

But after checking my notes, I determined that this was not the same situation we discussed.

SITUATION 9: A1, while dribbling the ball in the frontcourt near the midcourt line, has the ball strike the midcourt line and as the ball comes up from the dribble, A1 touches the ball and continues to dribble. RULING: Backcourt violation. A1 may not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt, before it went to the backcourt. (9-9-1)

The situation that we discussed many months ago was when a dribbler in the frontcourt puts a foot into the backcourt even though the dribbler isn't touching the ball at the time (Violation. Why? Because my mother said so.).

The earlier discussion dealt with the foot touching the division line, the recent interpretation deals with the ball touching the division line.