2020-21 Basketball Rule Interpretations ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul. Team B has the possession arrow. RULING: The official correctly administered the free throws as a part of the third quarter. 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. The fourth quarter should begin with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow. (4-19-3c; 5-6-2 EXCEPTION 3)

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's just saying that Team A will not be the team administering throw in at the division line to start the fourth quarter.

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".

Originally Posted by Raymond

It is poorly written but it is not incorrect.

"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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...



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.

They are saying that part is incorrect.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

They are saying that part is incorrect.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"The official ... starts the fourth quarter by awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul"

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).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"The team will not get the benefit of throw-in at the division line".

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 as correct, whereas test questions are often marked as incorrect, with citations to the correct answer.

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

[Raymond]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul. Team B has the possession arrow. RULING: The official correctly administered the free throws as a part of the third quarter. 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. The fourth quarter should begin with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow. (4-19-3c; 5-6-2 EXCEPTION 3)

Originally Posted by Raymond

It is poorly written ...

Originally Posted by Raymond

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."

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 ...).

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

SITUATION followed by RULING. Nowhere does it state TEAM B gets a throw-in at the spot of the foul.

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond

It is poorly written ...

[BillyMac]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 awarding the throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul. Team B has the possession arrow. RULING: The official correctly administered the free throws as a part of the third quarter. 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. The fourth quarter should begin with a throw-in by Team B, which has the possession arrow. (4-19-3c; 5-6-2 EXCEPTION 3)

Originally Posted by Raymond

It is poorly written but it is not incorrect.

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.

[Raymond]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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.

[Raymond]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

They have a situation, then proper ruling.

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

The ruling is telling you how the situation was supposed to be properly adjudicated, not how it is to be corrected.

The purpose of the ruling is to tell you the officials did it wrong and and tell you how it should have been handled.

As usual you are making it about something that it is not. It even tells you in the ruling that this is not a correctable error situation, therefore no penalty carries over. You are missing the point of the interpretation. The purpose of the situation and ruling is to show that the penalty for an intentional foul does not carry over to another quarter.





Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The ruling is telling you how the situation was supposed to be properly adjudicated ...

Here's the original situation: A1 is intentionally fouled as the signal to end the third quarter sounds. The official administers two 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. Team B has the possession arrow.

That's an obvious mistake as we all well know.

The original ruling does not properly adjudicate the situation.

The only proper ruling would have the ball the hands of Team A after a throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul.

Sure, a good ruling should mention the mistake, and what the officials should have done, but part of the ruling should include that this mistake was too late to fix, and Team A would have the ball, not Team B.

Any statement that Team B actually gets the ball back to start the fourth period is wrong.

Originally Posted by Raymond

The purpose of the situation and ruling is to show that the penalty for an intentional foul does not carry over to another quarter.

Agree 100%.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... the point of the interpretation is clear to me

As it is to me, but the NFHS did a piss-poor job of writing this interpretation.

Bottom line, this interpretation is "poorly worded". Raymond said it. I agree with Raymond. crosscountry55 went a little further and called it "confusing".

I'm certainly not an expert in writing rules and interpretations, but the two interpretations that I wrote are much more clear than the original NFHS interpretation.

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.

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.

Can anyone find any problem with either one?

The first one simply tells us that part of a penalty should not be carried over to the next quarter or extra period.

The second one also tells us that part of a penalty should not be carried over to the next quarter or extra period; and it also tells us what to do if a part of a penalty is erroneously carried over to the next quarter or extra period, which is what actually happened in the original interpretation.