2020-21 Basketball Rule Interpretations ...

[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.