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

If this is all about an English lesson, then I'm done with the conversation, because the point of the interpretation is clear to me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Clear ...
 

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.

Agree 100%.

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.

Sorry that it took me so long to reply to this, but I forgot about this discussion because the thread turned into Billymac and Raymond going back and forth.

In this particular case, what you write above is not correct. The reason is that the first foot which is lifted is not the pivot, so a dribble may be started without causing a traveling violation.

PIVOT
4.33 SITUATION: A1 catches the ball while both feet are off the floor, alights on one foot, jumps off that foot and comes to a stop with both feet simultaneously hitting the floor. A1 then lifts one foot and throws for a goal or passes. RULING: Legal. A1 may lift either foot in passing or trying for a goal in this situation. However, A1 may not pivot; that is, A1 may not lift one foot from the floor and then step (touch the floor) with that foot before the ball has left the hand(s). By rule, a pivot means a player “steps once or more than once with the same foot...” (4-44-2a(3); 4-44-4a)

Rule 4-44-4b says otherwise:
After coming to a stop when neither foot can be a pivot: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released to start a dribble.

The case does not address the question of lifting the foot before starting a dribble.

It says that lift and:

a) pass -- legal
b) shoot -- legal
c) re-place on the floor -- illegal
d) dribble -- not addressed (but I agree it's illegal)
e) call TO -- not addressed (but it's legal)

Under MOST circumstances, a player has one pivot foot (restricted movement) and one free foot (movement mostly unrestricted). When a player completes this type of jump stop (jump off one foot, land on both simultaneously), the movement of both feet is restricted. When a player executes the other type of jump stop (gather in the air and land on both feet simultaneously), the movement of both is unrestricted (at least at first, until one of them is moved)

Competitive Debate: Rules And Techniques (George McCoy Musgrave, 1957) ...
 

Lively, professional, spirited, respectful, educational, polite debate.

Excellent point, sir! I agree that we must go with that direct and clear rule despite any interpretations or case play rulings which may be unclear or contradict it.

Point to Camron. :)

Two Roads Diverged In A Wood (Robert Frost, 1916) ...
 

I usually go the other way.

Casebook plays and annual interpretations, especially those that are up to date (deleted, new, edited, changed, due to rule changes), tend to involve very specific circumstances with very specific rulings that tend to be quite clear.

I often view some casebook plays and annual interpretations as "exceptions" to the rules as written, some regarding "odd" situations not specifically covered by the more generic written rules.

And yes, casebook plays and annual interpretations sometimes conflict with the rules as written.

Stupid NFHS.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.L...=0&w=300&h=300