2020-21 Basketball Rule Interpretations ...
 

2020-21 Basketball Rule Interpretations

SITUATION 1: Team A head coach has received a second direct technical foul. The coach is directed to leave the vicinity of the bench and go to the locker room. The team has no other adult personnel on the bench for this contest. RULING: Since there is no other adult school personnel available to supervise the team, the contest will be declared a forfeit. The score will stand if the opposing team is ahead. If the forfeiting team is ahead, the score will be recorded as a 2-0 forfeit. (5-4-1c)

SITUATION 2: A1 is moving and catches the ball on one foot, then jumps and lands on both feet. The player then lifts the left foot and then returns it to the floor before releasing the ball to start a dribble. The official allows play to continue. RULING: The official should rule a travel on A1. When landing on one foot and then jumping and landing on both feet, the player does not have a pivot foot. If either foot is moved before releasing the ball to start a dribble, it is a travel. (4-44-2a, 3)

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)

SITUATION 4: Team A has its school logo placed above the number on the jersey. The official rules the jersey illegal. RULING: The official is correct. The logo may be placed in the apex of the neckline on the front of the jersey or in the upper shoulder area on the front of the jersey or a corresponding area on the back or in the side insert. It may not be placed above the number. The name of the logo may be placed above the number, not the picture. (3-4-4a)

SITUATION 5: B1 obtains a legal guarding position on A1, who is dribbling the ball near the sideline. There is no contact by A1 while B1 has both feet on the playing court. B1 stays in the path of A1 but in doing so has (a) one foot touching the out-of-bounds boundary line, or (b) one foot in the air over the out-of-bounds boundary line when A1 contacts B1 in the torso. RULING: In (a), a blocking foul shall be called on B1. B1 may not be touching out of bounds. In (b), a player-control foul shall be called on A1; B1 had established and maintained a legal guarding position. (4-23-2, 4-23-3, 4-35-1)

SITUATION 6: Team A (free-throw shooting team) has no players in marked lane spaces. Team B (non-shooting team) has (a) four players in the first and second marked lane spaces or (b) two players in the first marked lane spaces only. RULING: Legal in both (a) and (b). The shooting team is not required to have any players in marked lane spaces and the defensive team must only have the first marked lane spaces occupied. If a team does not occupy a marked lane space to which it is entitled, the opponent may occupy the space (within the number limitations). (8-1-4)

SITUATION 7: Team A is playing with five players but has no remaining substitutes available when one of the players has an asthma attack. The coach is beckoned onto the floor. RULING: The player must leave the game unless a time-out is requested and granted to Team A with the player being ready to resume by the end of the time-out. The team may continue with fewer than five players if there are no substitutes available. An injured/ill player may return to the game after recovery. (3-3-6)

SITUATION 8: A1 is fouled by B2 and is awarded two free throws. The foul is B2’s fifth foul. The new trail official reports the fifth foul to Team B’s coach. Before a substitute is made, the lead official incorrectly permits A1 to attempt the first free throw. The officials realize the error and huddle to discuss the situation. RULING: The result of the first attempt shall stand. Team B’s head coach shall be notified of B2’s disqualification. Once B2 has been replaced, A1 shall attempt the second free throw. COMMENT: This is an official’s error and not a correctable-error situation according to Rule 2-10. (2-8-3, 4-14-1, 6-1-2c)

SITUATION 9: A1, while being defended, is driving from near the free-throw line extended toward the end line. A1 continues toward the end line and pulls up and goes airborne just before the boundary line with his/her momentum carrying him/her out of bounds. Just as A1 goes airborne, he/she passes off to a teammate across the lane and lands out of bounds. RULING: No violation. A player’s momentum, after performing legal actions on the court that results in taking him/her out of bounds is not a violation for leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. However, if A1 purposely or deceitfully delays returning after legally being out of bounds to gain an advantage, a player technical foul would be assessed. (4-4-3, 9-3-3, 10-4-2)

SITUATION 10: A1 fouls out of the game. The Team A coach talks to a substitute and within 15 seconds sends the substitute to the table to report in the game. A Team B player then requests a time-out. RULING: Since a time-out may not be granted until a disqualified player is replaced, the administering official should ask the substitute at the table if he/she is the replacement for A1. If so, the time-out may be granted. If not, the substitute shall remain at the table and the coach must still replace A1 within the specified timeframe before the time-out may be granted. (3-3-1, 5-8-3b, 10-6-2)

Sticky Thread Addendum ...
 

Can a moderator please post this set of annual interpretations to Nevadaref's NFHS Past Interpretations Archive Sticky Thread?

Blast from the past! About half of these are just repeated from prior years. That’s so lazy of the NFHS committee.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell ... ...
 

As a result of some state-wide problems, our Connecticut high school sports governing body has some guidelines in place for such a situation. Once the coach, with no assistants, is ejected, the ejected coach has fifteen minutes to be replaced by a non-student over the age of eighteen. It is not the officials responsibility to check for proof of proper certification (usually all coaches in the state have to have a state issued coaching certificate), or age, or non-student status, we don't even ask. No replacement after fifteen minutes leads a forfeit by the team without a coach, even if they are leading in the game. Usually never comes up in high school varsity or junior varsity games, but does occasionally come up in high school freshman games (especially the visiting team), or middle school games.

Our state high school sports governing body probably figures that canceling a co-curricular school activity involving two teams of athletes (one team traveling by bus, that may have already left to return for a later pickup), cheerleaders, fans, officials, and parents, due to the behavior of one adult who lost his temper and said the wrong word to an official, possibly in the first minute of a game, may not be the best educational plan for all involved. Give the coach (as long as he's not being a dickhead) some time to get a teacher, administrator, parent, police officer in the corner, custodian, or even the other team's assistant coach, to coach, thus allowing the completion of this educationally valuable extracurricular school activity. That’s probably preferable to sending everybody home and turning off the lights in the gym when ten or fifteen minutes of time can possibly remedy a problem.

Substitute Coach ...
 

Many, many years ago, when I was still teaching middle school science and coaching girls middle school basketball, our middle school boys coach got ejected from a game, and per state interscholastic sports guidelines had to sit out the next game. He had no assistant so the principal asked me (having state coaching certification, first aid, CPR, etc.) to coach the boys team.

Next game was against our cross town rivals.

I hadn't seen the boys play all season long, and only knew a few of the boys on the team because they were in my science class.

The point guard/captain was a student in my science class and I knew that he was very intelligent, so I put him in charge of calling all the plays. The only thing I did was decide to go box and one to try to contain their best player. We lost and that best player opponent is now a basketball official on my local board and reminds me of that loss every time that I see him.

A reason for the loss may have been that I played ten boys. All the starters got a breather in each half, even if for only for a minute or two. After the game several parents came up to me and thanked me for coaching. A few thanked me for playing their sons, even if only for a few minutes. Apparently the coach used a "star system" and played only his best players for as long as possible, for thirty-two minutes in most cases. A few of these parents told me that their sons hadn't come off the bench all season long. Parents of a special education student were especially thankful. I guess that I figured out why a few boys would usually quit the team each and every season.

Who wrote these? They certainly leave a lot to be desired for what are supposed to be clarifying rulings.

#2, in the last sentence says "If either foot is moved" when it should say "either foot is lifted". In all other facets of the travel rule, a moved foot is one that is lifted and returned to the floor.

#4. Says the number can't be above the number, but that it has to be in the apex of the neckline. Isn't apex of the neckline above the number. Likewise for the shoulder area. It can be above the number but it has to be in a specific place above the number.

EDIT: Removed an item relating to #5 since they've actually corrected what I was complaining about.


#9. No problem with what it says, but I wish they'd change the rule about delaying the return inbounds to be a violation. It will almost never get calls as a T.

Great Minds Think Alike ...
 

Aren't you directly tied to the NF? Can you find out who wrote these? And again this is why it is clear that are not officials on the commitee that either use their voice or participate in the material put out. These interpretations often cause confusion or have wording that is problematic. When I have said that you and others try to tell us there is nothing to see here. But then I see posts like this that contradict parts of rules or wording in these interpretations. And what really is funny how these will be used, but never are in the Casebooks or Simplified and Illustrated books which care interepretations.

Peace

Inbound Status ...
 

4-23-2: To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

4-23-3: After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be
airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, -
provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical
plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent

4-35-1: The location of a player or nonplayer is determined by where
the person is touching the floor as far as being:
a. Inbounds or out-of-bounds.
b. In the frontcourt or backcourt.
c. Outside (behind/beyond) or inside the three-point field-goal line.

Doesn't the guard still have to have inbound status while maintaining legal guarding position? See 4-23-3-A.

Well, I stand corrected. That phrase wasn't always there. It was added somewhere along the way.

I have some disagreement with this post. BillyMac already posted the correction to #5, so I won't bother with that.

#2 A standing player in possesion of the ball may always jump into the air without violating. It is the returning to the floor which is the issue, so I am fine with the language used by the NFHS. As you note, the NFHS is using the word "moved" to signify a change in location of the foot from one spot on the floor to another. The lifting is not illegal by itself, whether it is done with both feet or only one.

#4 Uniform regulation are somewhat confusing. This play ruling does about the best job that it can of clarifying that a school logo may be in the neckline of the jersey at the apex (central point), while it cannot otherwise be on the front of the jersey above the number. So the point is that if the logo is anywhere else than the one location specified by this play ruling, the jersey is illegal.

#9 What we must decide is if the current penalty for delaying one's return from out of bounds is too harsh. Perhaps, but perhaps not. This kind of deceit isn't something which we want in the game and a harsh penalty therefore serves as a deterent to attempting such deception. The lighter penalty may get called more, but if not it makes trying this trickery far more worth it because even if you do get caught and penalized, the punishment is merely a single loss of possession.

#2: Read the case again. It is illegal if either foot is lifted prior to starting a dribble...that is a travel.

#3. No, it doesn't do the best job it can. It could have been worded way better and it wouldn't have been difficult. It is badly worded situations like this that leads to people penalizing things that are legal.

Below is my quickly created suggestion for an alternative. My additions, with wording taken straight form the rule book, are in red):


#9. How are these plays really any different than a player leaving the court without authorization. They're essentially the same act. They should have the same penalty.

I Know It When I See It ...
 

Cameron Rust and Nevadaref aren't too far apart. Nevadaref's assertion that "a standing player in possession of the ball may always jump into the air" may be generally true. However, as Cameron Rust pointed out, the actual interpretation reads "before releasing the ball to start a dribble", which is illegal by rule (Rule 4-4-b: Neither foot may be lifted before the ball is released, to start a dribble).

The conflict seems to stem from the split second between the ball being released and the ball hitting the floor and then touched again as a dribble. If the player in the interpretation had decided to pass or shoot with said foot off the floor instead of dribbling (ball hits floor and is touched again), under those conditions (pass, shot) I believe that these two conditions would all be legal.

But none of those two things happened, the interpretation only says "dribble" which is clearly illegal by Rule 4-4-b.

Of course in a real game, under real game conditions (and with this interpretation), not too many officials would be that picky (and patient) interpreting what a "dribble" is by waiting for the ball to be released, hit the floor, and be touched a second time (remember the call is travelling not an illegal (double) dribble). In 1964 United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously stated “I know it (pornography) when I see it”. Likewise, most experienced officials know the release and start of a dribble when they "see it". Most experienced officials also know a release to pass or shoot when they "see it".

Just be careful with this (pass, shot) on a written exam.

Note that David landed simultaneously on both feet, so either foot may be the pivot foot. Venus de Milo's right foot is on the floor, I think that her left foot may be missing.

https://tse4.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=300&h=300 https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.a...=0&w=300&h=300

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the confusing ruling in #3 yet. The ruling says the team will not get the benefit of the throw-in at the division line, when I believe what they meant to write is that the team will not get the benefit of the throw-in at the spot nearest the location of the international foul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stupid NFHS ...
 

Nice catch crosscountry55.

Wow? So Team B, which has the possession arrow, starts the fourth quarter with throw-in at the spot nearest the spot of the intentional foul?

I guess that being half right is better than not being right at all?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.J...=0&w=286&h=162

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.

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