It's just saying that Team A will not be the team administering throw in at the division line to start the fourth quarter. They use a whole bunch of extra words to say the fourth quarter will start as it normally would. It is poorly written but it is not incorrect.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Being Half Right Is Better Than Not Being Right At All ...
 

Yes, the interpretation certainly does take the long way around to eventually say that, which is 100% correct.

It also states that "the official ... starts the fourth quarter by awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul" which is 100% incorrect (unless the intentional foul was at the division line opposite the table).

It further states "the team will not get the benefit of throw-in at the division line".

"Poorly written"? Agree, in spades.

"Not incorrect"? Half right.

Too bad, this would have noble effort at great interpretation of odd things that can occasionally occur very close, or immediately after, a period ends, and how to penalize such, but the NFHS screwed it up.

Stupid NFHS. Doesn't anybody read and edit these before publishing?

They are saying that part is incorrect.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Annual Interpretation Not A Test Question ...
 

Where does it state that this interpretation incorrect?

This is an annual interpretation not a test question.

We should be able to assume that annual interpretations and casebook play interpretations are always stated (in theory at least) as correct, whereas test questions are often marked as incorrect, with citations to the correct answer.

Wrong. The official starts the fourth quarter by awarding the throw-in to Team B at the division line opposite the table (unless the intentional foul was at the division line opposite the table).

Wrong. Yes it will. Team B get the benefit of throw-in at the division line opposite the table.

Where does it state that these two interpretation statements are incorrect, which they are?

Nice catch crosscountry55.

In the ANSWER they said the free throws were properly administered. Nowhere does it state Team B gets a throw-in nearest foul spot.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Poorly Written ...
 

"The official administers the free throws as a part of the third quarter and starts the fourth quarter by awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul."

It's not a test question. There is no "answer". There is no question.

It's an interpretation, not a test question. A situation is presented, something that actually did happen, and then there is a ruling, not an answer. The ruling tells you the call (legal, illegal, foul, violation, etc.) and the penalty (free throws, throwin, etc.), if there is a penalty. Interpretations don't tell us if the official was correct or incorrect (as with a test question and test answer). Unless it's a correctable error interpretation (usually contains the word erroneously).

This interpretation doesn't contain the word erroneously (as in, the official starts the fourth quarter by erroneously awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul).

No true or false, or yes or no, in interpretations, as in exam questions.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall any interpretation situation including something that the officials did wrong (except a correctable error interpretation). Officials have often been described as doing something wrong in exam questions, not interpretation situations.

Answers, as in exam answer sheets, assume that something may, or may not have been done incorrectly.

No where in this interpretation does it state that when the official started the fourth quarter by awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul was that the official was incorrect.

What it does say in the ruling (or answer) is misleading. The ruling (or answer), not the situation (nor the question) states that the team (which team?) will not get the benefit of throw-in at the division line (incorrect, Team B actually will get it there) and that the fourth quarter should begin with a throw-in by Team B (correct), but it doesn't say where, it never says where.

Agree 100%.

This addresses the incorrect portion of the situation:

"The team will not get the benefit of throw-in at the division line because the quarter ended. No penalty or part of a penalty should be carried over to the next quarter or extra period except when a correctable error is involved."

Followed by the proper administration:

"The fourth quarter should begin with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow."


SITUATION followed by RULING.

Nowhere does it state TEAM B gets a throw-in at the spot of the foul. That is your INFERRANCE.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Confusing ...
 

I certainly see your logic. We both agree that this interpretation is poorly written. Seldom do we see interpretations with erroneous rulings in the situation portion of the interpretation (exception for correctable errors that often contain the phrase "official erroneously ...).

Again, we both agree that this interpretation is poorly written. The interpretation contains two different throwin spots, one correct, and one incorrect, and ends with no specific throwin spot cited. It also contains a reference to "team" ("the team") without specifically indicating which team, Team A, or Team B.

You are correct in that "nowhere" in the ruling section does it say the Team B gets a throw-in at the spot of the foul, it only states such (incorrectly) in the situation section. But it also doesn't say it the the ruling section either. The ruling section just tells us that Team B gets the ball, but doesn't specifically tell us where (division line opposite table), after stating an incorrect throwin spot in the situation section.

I still stand by crosscountry55's statement that this interpretation was written in a "confusing" manner.

I also believe that the erroneous information presented in the situation section of this interpretation without the the phrase "official erroneously" makes this more like a test question rather than what we are usually use to seeing in an interpretation.

Better ???
 

crosscountry55 and Raymond. Better?

SITUATION 3: A1, who is dribbling the ball, is intentionally fouled as the signal to end the third quarter sounds. Team B has the possession arrow. RULING: The official administers the two free throws to A1 as a part of the third quarter. Team A will not get the penalty benefit of starting the fourth quarter with the ball at the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul because the quarter ended. No penalty or part of a penalty should be carried over to the next quarter or extra period except when a correctable error is involved. The fourth quarter will begin with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow, at the division line opposite the table.

SITUATION 3: A1, who is dribbling the ball, is intentionally fouled as the signal to end the third quarter sounds. The official administers the free throws as a part of the third quarter and starts the fourth quarter by erroneously awarding the ball to Team A at a throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul. Team B has the possession arrow. Team A completes the erroneous throwin. RULING: The official correctly administered the free throws as a part of the third quarter. However, Team A should not have gotten the penalty benefit of starting the fourth quarter with the ball at the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul because the quarter ended. No penalty or part of a penalty should be carried over to the next quarter or extra period except when a correctable error is involved. This is not a correctable error. When an official administers a throw-in to the wrong team, the mistake must be rectified before the throw-in ends.

All it took was less than thirty minutes of editing to come up with two viable interpretations that are less confusing and more clearly written than the original interpretation.

The second interpretation provides important additional information not offered in the original interpretation, that the original situation is not a correctable error, and when an official administers a throw-in to the wrong team the mistake must be rectified before the throw-in ends.

Stupid NFHS ...
 

The original ruling is totally incorrect. The original situation in the original interpretation is not a correctable error, it was a "mistake". When an official administers a throw-in to the wrong team the mistake must be rectified before the throw-in ends. The fourth quarter could not have started with a throw-in by Team B at the division line opposite the table. Once the Team A throw-in (I assume Team A, it doesn't actually state that because the original interpretation was so poorly written) at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul ended, it was too late to correct.

I don't see where they said it was a correctable error in the ruling.

No Do-over ...
 

Because there wasn't one, in either the situation, or the ruling.

It was the actual original ruling that was totally wrong.

Original Situation: “official … starts the fourth quarter by awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul.”

This actually happened. It was a mistake, but it did happen.

Not only is this not a correctable error, it's also a mistake that can't be "corrected" (assuming the throwin was completed, it doesn't actually state that because the original interpretation is so poorly written).

Since the official erroneously starting the fourth quarter by awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul cannot be "corrected" in any manner (no do-overs) the fourth quarter can't be started (or re-started) as in the original incorrect ruling. It had already started when the official erroneously awarded the throw-in to Team A (I assume Team A, it doesn't actually state that because the original interpretation was so poorly written) at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.A...=0&w=182&h=129

I don't understand your point. They never said it was a correctable error. They have a situation, then proper ruling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Original Ruling Wrong ...
 

It's not the proper ruling. Once throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul is completed, as stated in the original situation, that mistake can't be fixed. There is no other legal way of starting the fourth period. There are no do-overs. Sometimes mistakes, or errors, can be legally fixed, but not this one.

The original ruling states that the fourth quarter begins with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow. That's what should have happened, but it can't happen based on the original situation. It can't be legally fixed.

Once that mistake occurs there is no way that Team B legally gets to ll

BillyMac's SITUATION 3: A1, who is dribbling the ball, is intentionally fouled as the signal to end the third quarter sounds. The official administers the free throws as a part of the third quarter and starts the fourth quarter by erroneously awarding the ball to Team A at a throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul. Team B has the possession arrow. Team A completes the erroneous throwin. RULING: The official correctly administered the free throws as a part of the third quarter. However, Team A should not have gotten the penalty benefit of starting the fourth quarter with the ball at the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul because the quarter ended. No penalty or part of a penalty should be carried over to the next quarter or extra period except when a correctable error is involved. This is not a correctable error. When an official administers a throw-in to the wrong team, the mistake must be rectified before the throw-in ends.

My "situation" above is worded exactly the same as the original, the only difference being the added word "erroneously".

Is my "ruling" wrong? Is it not too late to fix? Is there now any legal way for Team B to get the ball to start the fourth period at the division line opposite the table?

The original ruling stated "the fourth quarter should begin with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow". It would make more sense if it said "the fourth quarter should have begun with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow"

Where in the original ruling does it say "too late to fix, play on after the Team A throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul is completed"?

Now that would be a correct ruling for this situation.

But it doesn't say that. Just some confusing, unclear gibberish that implies that Team B will start the fourth period at the division line opposite the table.

Perfect ...
 

It's easier if no mistake, or error, occurred:

BillyMac's Other SITUATION 3: A1, who is dribbling the ball, is intentionally fouled as the signal to end the third quarter sounds. Team B has the possession arrow. RULING: The official administers the two free throws to A1 as a part of the third quarter. Team A will not get the penalty benefit of starting the fourth quarter with the ball at the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul because the quarter ended. No penalty or part of a penalty should be carried over to the next quarter or extra period except when a correctable error is involved. The fourth quarter will begin with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow, at the division line opposite the table.