|
|||
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
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Being Half Right Is Better Than Not Being Right At All ...
Quote:
Quote:
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?
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Oct 24, 2020 at 12:25pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
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. Quote:
Quote:
Where does it state that these two interpretation statements are incorrect, which they are? Nice catch crosscountry55.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Oct 24, 2020 at 12:43pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
Poorly Written ...
Quote:
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%.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Oct 24, 2020 at 07:14pm. |
|
|||
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
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR Last edited by Raymond; Sat Oct 24, 2020 at 09:26pm. |
|
||||
Confusing ...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Oct 25, 2020 at 11:55am. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Oct 25, 2020 at 03:51pm. |
|
|||
Stupid NFHS ...
Quote:
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Oct 25, 2020 at 02:02pm. |
|
|||
No Do-over ...
Quote:
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Oct 25, 2020 at 02:02pm. |
|
|||
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
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Oct 25, 2020 at 03:50pm. |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2020 NFHS Basketball Rules Questionnaire ... | BillyMac | Basketball | 7 | Mon Feb 17, 2020 04:37pm |
2020 online rule books | Cliffdweller | Softball | 6 | Wed Dec 25, 2019 09:05am |
2012-13 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations ... | BillyMac | Basketball | 14 | Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:18pm |
Basketball Interpretations | ronny mulkey | Basketball | 34 | Sat Oct 15, 2011 06:06am |
NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3 | Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. | Basketball | 23 | Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:53pm |