Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Will Love This ...

[BillyMac]

Might as well jump (jump)
Go ahead and jump
Might as well jump (jump)
Go ahead and jump

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The language in the jump ball rule of a designated jumper is left over from prior to the AP arrow becoming part of the game.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Going back to the Ancient (Pre-AP Arrow) Days "New Situation 6" could be described to include any time that A2 and B2 simultaneously caused the Ball to go Out-of-Bounds, whether or not there was Team Control at the time that the Ball went Out-of-Bounds, A2 and B2 would be the Jumpers, and either one could only be replaced because of injury. And it would also apply to "New Situation 5". Meaning that in the Post-Ancient Days "New Situations 5 and 6" would be treated the same way: the two Players who simultaneously caused the Ball to go Out-of-Bounds would be the Jumpers and either one could only be replaced because of injury.

I believe that Nevadaref and Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. have hit the nail right on the head.

In 1985 when the NFHS Rules Committee adopted the alternating possession throw‐in for all jump or held‐ball situations except the start of the game and each extra period they appear to have failed to change all the language to fully cover all situations that could possibly lead to a post-1985 jump ball.

Have we discovered a thirty-five year old careless, incomplete, editing mistake?

Is "designated jumper" another fine mess that the NFHS has gotten us into (with apologies to Oliver Hardy)?

Even if the jump ball language was cleaned up, would it help with my first two situations involving replacement/substitute jumpers where a poor toss by the official, or poor jumps by the jumpers, caused the re-jump (not caused by a held ball or simultaneous touch out of bounds situation before the alternating possession arrow had been established).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) Situation: Official tosses the ball to begin the game. Jumpers A1 and B1 are unable to touch the tossed ball and the ball hits the floor. The ball became live with the toss, the game officially starts, but the clock didn't start. Team A coach requests that player A2 jump in the re-tossed jump ball. A1 is not injured nor is A1 bleeding.

2) Similar situation to begin the game, but before the re-tossed jump ball, Team A coach wants to substitute A6 for jumper A1. A6 is waiting on the X in front of the table and is ready to be the new jumper. A1 is not injured nor is A1 bleeding.

As LRZ stated earlier, there are no "entering substitute" restrictions because it's the start of the game (not an overtime period).

These situations are not about restricting "entering substitutes", these situations are about possibly restricting "designated jumpers".

Young'uns can search "fine mess" and Oliver Hardy on the Google.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) Situation: Official tosses the ball to begin the game. Jumpers A1 and B1 are unable to touch the tossed ball and the ball hits the floor. The ball became live with the toss, the game officially starts, but the clock didn't start. Team A coach requests that player A2 jump in the re-tossed jump ball. A1 is not injured nor is A1 bleeding.

2) Similar situation to begin the game, but before the re-tossed jump ball, Team A coach wants to substitute A6 for jumper A1. A6 is waiting on the X in front of the table and is ready to be the new jumper. A1 is not injured nor is A1 bleeding.

By the way, in the heat of the game, I'm not allowing the Team A coach to make either of these substitutions/replacements.

Now, if I were taking a written exam on these two situations, I'm still leaning the same way based on the ancient concept of "designated jumper", but I can be convinced otherwise.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMace

Originally Posted by BillyMac
1) Situation: Official tosses the ball to begin the game. Jumpers A1 and B1 are unable to touch the tossed ball and the ball hits the floor. The ball became live with the toss, the game officially starts, but the clock didn't start. Team A coach requests that player A2 jump in the re-tossed jump ball. A1 is not injured nor is A1 bleeding.

2) Similar situation to begin the game, but before the re-tossed jump ball, Team A coach wants to substitute A6 for jumper A1. A6 is waiting on the X in front of the table and is ready to be the new jumper. A1 is not injured nor is A1 bleeding.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

By the way, in the heat of the game, I'm not allowing the Team A coach to make either of these substitutions/replacements.

Now, if I were taking a written exam on these two situations, I'm still leaning the same way based on the ancient concept of "designated jumper", but I can be convinced otherwise.

I have not seen a citation or reference that tells me I can't allow subs in those situations.

[ilyazhito]

A1 is a jumper by virtue of having participated in the initial jump ball. Because it did not legally end, he still remains a jumper. A jumper or a free thrower cannot be substituted for unless he is injured, ill, or disqualified. A6 cannot enter the game to substitute for A1, because the jump ball has not ended. If the jump ball had been legally or illegally ended, i.e. because of a jump ball violation or one jumper tipping the ball straight out of bounds, then the substitution of A6 for A1 would be legal. A2 cannot replace A1 because the jump ball must be attempted again. According to Rule 6-4-3-NOTE, "When the alternating-possession procedure has not been established, the jump ball shall be in the center restraining circle between the two players involved in the subsequent action." The subsequent action was A1 and B1 failing to touch the tossed ball, so they must, by rule, be the two players involved in the second jump ball.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

According to Rule 6-4-3-NOTE, "When the alternating-possession procedure has not been established, the jump ball shall be in the center restraining circle between the two players involved in the subsequent action." The subsequent action was A1 and B1 failing to touch the tossed ball, so they must, by rule, be the two players involved in the second jump ball.

Interesting citation ilyazhito. It may bring something new to the table. I may be the citation that I was (unsuccessfully) looking for.

[LRZ]

In 6-4-3 (which deals with alternating possession, not jump balls), there is a toss, a touch by at least one jumper, and a subsequent action. Not so in situation 1. Let's say A1 and B1 are the jumpers, but A2 and B2 simultaneously touch the ball going out of bounds (the subsequent action). The note says A2 and B2 would jump.

But situation 1 involves a different set of facts. R tosses the ball, neither jumper touches it, and it falls to the floor. What is the "subsequent"--"following"--action? There is none, so this note language does not apply. "The subsequent action was A1 and B1 failing to touch the tossed ball, so they must, by rule, be the two players involved in the second jump ball." This is a distorted, erroneous reading of the word "subsequent."

"Because it [the jump ball] did not legally end, he [A1] still remains a jumper."
"A2 cannot replace A1 because the jump ball must be attempted again."

We've already established that 3-3-2 does not prohibit the switch. What rule or case says that another player already on the floor cannot replace--not sub for, but replace--the original jumper? Citation, please?

As for who or what does the designating, the rule and case books are silent on this. In truth, no one designates the jumpers; they "self-designate." The horn sounds, ten players come onto the floor, two enter the center circle, the R tosses the ball, and away we go.

If you are going to bar something, you need a relevant rule or case, or a less-convoluted (and more germane) analysis. Arcane, out-of-context readings are pedantry, and can result in OOO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

"subsequent."

Caused me to take pause as well.

[BillyMac]

Or, if you prefer, Wrong Way Riegels.

Originally Posted by LRZ

The horn sounds, ten players come onto the floor, two enter the center circle, the R tosses the ball, and away we go.

What? You don't tell all the players to hold their spots?

I actually have a prejump routine that only an official with obsessive compulsive disorder could appreciate.

I point to the bench to my left, then point to the jumper to my left, both times stating the color of their jerseys, and then point the opposite (right) way and state, "That way".

I follow that by pointing to the bench to my right, then point to the jumper to my right, both times stating the color of their jerseys, and then point the opposite (left) way and state, "That way".

Ever since they changed the basket/bench rule, I've never started the wrong way because of me. Of course this doesn't work for overtime.

Young'uns can look for Wrong Way Corrigan and Wrong Way Riegels on the Google.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I have not seen a citation or reference that tells me I can't allow subs in those situations.

I agree, which is why I asked about these situations to begin with. I believe that the NFHS dropped the ball back in 1985 and didn't do a perfect job, taking into consideration all possible situations, of changing the game from one with many jump balls to a game with one (or a few) jump balls, especially by diluting the meaning of "designated jumper".