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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

. when I referee soccer, I hide my whistle behind my back, put it in one hand or the other, and have the visiting captain choose "left" or "right." It's not a "coin toss," but it works.

But that's against Michigan basketball rules. The rule says "coin toss", it means coin toss, not whistle guess.

Wait a minute? I thought LRZ retired from this thread? We already hoisted the banner with his username up into the rafters.

Well I guess that if Bob Cousy, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson can do it, so can LRZ.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But that's against Michigan basketball rules. The rule says "coin toss", it means coin toss, not whistle guess.

If no one enforces all of the rules all of the time, why do some keep focusing on what the rules always dictate and use that to seemingly end their discussion/argument? Seems hypocritical doesn't it? Hmmm.

Love you BM.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But that's against Michigan basketball rules. The rule says "coin toss", it means coin toss, not whistle guess.

Originally Posted by bucky

If no one enforces all of the rules all of the time, why do some keep focusing on what the rules always dictate and use that to seemingly end their discussion/argument? Seems hypocritical doesn't it?

I was trying to be funny.

Hiding inside my secret underground COVID shelter is getting to me.

I had to bring a baby gift from my neighbor to my daughter's house yesterday (I wore a mask, didn't touch anybody).

I didn't want to leave. Didn't want to go home. Took me fifteen minutes to leave after I said "goodbye" and threw kisses to my three grandsons.

[ilyazhito]

If NFHS dropped the ball on editing language after the transition from jump balls the entire game to jump balls only to start the game and overtime periods, I wouldn't be surprised. NFHS rulebooks and tests have been known to contain editing mistakes, questions with no correct answer, and changes for little reason, such as "must" to "shall" in the 2019-20 edition of the rulebook, and the subsequent changes back for the 2020-21 edition.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

If NFHS dropped the ball on editing language after the transition from jump balls the entire game to jump balls only to start the game and overtime periods, I wouldn't be surprised ...

This is my opinion on what happened in 1985 (my fourth year officiating basketball).

The NFHS wanted to simply get rid of all real jump balls except start/overtime. Sounds simple enough right, and then they put a ton of effort into explaining how the new alternating possession arrow and procedures would work, figuring that they could just leave start/overtime jump ball language pretty much as it already existed with little change. They figured that the start/overtime jump ball would be the same, unchanged, as it was in the past.

Of course, the use of the alternating possession arrow (as opposed to a real jump ball) never requires any "designated" players.

In getting rid of all non-start/non-overtime jump balls from the rulebook and casebook, they inadvertently got rid of some non-start/non-overtime situations that could actually occur in a start/overtime jump ball, for example, two jumpers simultaneously tapping the jump ball of bounds.

Previous to 1985 we all knew exactly how to handle this very simple situation, whether it occurred at start/overtime, or in the middle of the game, even between two players who were not jumpers. These situations were handled with a jump ball between the two players involved, in other words "designated jumpers", who couldn't be substituted for, or replaced.

For those of us old enough to have officiated before 1985, we remember those pre-1985 situations, and how to handle them, with lots (although not all, i.e., flange/backboard) of situations with "designated jumpers", and very strict interpretations of not allowing substitutes/replacements for "designated jumpers".

Younger officials can only look at the current rulebook and casebook language, and see only two very specific situations regarding "designated jumpers", and far less strict interpretations regarding substitutes/replacements for "designated jumpers".

I find it very hard to believe that the NFHS intended (as in "intent and purpose") for only two very specific situations regarding "designated jumpers" with very strict limits on substitution/replacement of "designated jumpers":

6.4.1 SITUATION C: Following the jump between A1 and B1 to start the first quarter, the jump ball: (b) is touched simultaneously by A2 and B2 and it then goes out of bounds; (c) is simultaneously controlled by A2 and B2; In (b) and (c), A2 and B2 will jump in the center restraining circle regardless of where the ball went out or where the held ball occurred.(4-12-1; 4-28-1)

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

... questions with no correct answer ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow. I didn't think that this quote would add any sense of closure to this issue, but it seems to have worked.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow. I didn't think that this quote would add any sense of closure to this issue, but it seems to have worked.

We know that won't stop you

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

There are designated jumpers in the rulebook only in situations where two players cause a held ball prior to possession being established for the purposes of setting the AP arrow.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1985 ... The NFHS wanted to simply get rid of all real jump balls except start/overtime. Sounds simple enough right, and then they put a ton of effort into explaining how the new alternating possession arrow and procedures would work, figuring that they could just leave start/overtime jump ball language pretty much as it already existed with little change. They figured that the start/overtime jump ball would be the same, unchanged, as it was in the past. Of course, the use of the alternating possession arrow (as opposed to a real jump ball) never requires any "designated" players. In getting rid of all non-start/non-overtime jump balls from the rulebook and casebook, they inadvertently got rid of some non-start/non-overtime situations that could actually occur in a start/overtime jump ball, for example, two jumpers simultaneously tapping the jump ball of bounds. Previous to 1985 we all knew exactly how to handle this very simple situation, whether it occurred at start/overtime, or in the middle of the game, even between two players who were not jumpers. These situations were handled with a jump ball between the two players involved, in other words "designated jumpers", who couldn't be substituted for, or replaced. For those of us old enough to have officiated before 1985, we remember[ those pre-1985 situations, and how to handle them, with lots (although not all, i.e., flange/backboard) of situations with "designated jumpers", and very strict interpretations of not allowing substitutes/replacements for "designated jumpers". Younger officials can only look at the current rulebook and casebook language, and see only two very specific situations regarding "designated jumpers", and far less strict interpretations regarding substitutes/replacements for "designated jumpers".

I find it very hard to believe that the NFHS intended (as in "intent and purpose") for only two very specific situations regarding "designated jumpers" with very strict limits on substitution/replacement of "designated jumpers":

6.4.1 SITUATION C: Following the jump between A1 and B1 to start the first quarter, the jump ball: (b) is touched simultaneously by A2 and B2 and it then goes out of bounds; (c) is simultaneously controlled by A2 and B2; In (b) and (c), A2 and B2 will jump in the center restraining circle regardless of where the ball went out or where the held ball occurred.(4-12-1; 4-28-1)

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.