Interpretations

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

... the interpretation I posted would still be valid today, no overriding rule would have canceled it out.

Never officially stated by the NFHS, but often assumed to be true by many, but not all, officials. Nothing officially stated by the NFHS to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Indianaref

... If this interp is not in the case book, then it was not approved and is no longer valid ...

Definitely never officially stated by the NFHS. Definitely no NFHS statute of limitations on old missing interpretations solely based on age, or a lack of activity regarding such. Nothing officially stated by the NFHS to the contrary.

[Indianaref]

Here is the interpretation that said person thought was invalid because it never made the case book

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

Here is the interpretation that said person thought was invalid because it never made the case book

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

That ruling is definitely still valid. I am the one who posted that play on this forum because it happened in a local game. Someone from this forum communicated it to the NFHS and a ruling was issued. Nothing in the rules has changed since that play ruling was issued. It fits perfectly with the current NfHS rules.

[BillyMac]

Did this ever make it's way into the rulebook? Outside of Connecticut, how are officials with less than nine years of experience supposed to know this (assume no spitting)? Stupid NFHS.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We actually do have some "Connecticut Only" rules, and/or mechanics. Team members are not allowed to congregate at division line, or on school logo during introductions. I believe that the "team congregate school logo introductions" is an actual NFHS "rule", but I believe it's embedded in a Point of Emphasis from several years ago, and never made it's way into the actual rulebook. The Connecticut interscholastic sports governing body wants this strictly enforced. Too many players spitting on the home team logo.

2011-12 Points Of Emphasis
Sporting Behavior. The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee continues to be concerned about the following behaviors: Pregame Situations. Teams entering the gymnasium prior to the contest should not run through the area occupied by the opposing team or under the basket where opponents are warming up. Teams should only enter, jog or warm-up on their own half of the court. Gatherings intended to motivate a team after the warm-up period, during or following player introductions and post-game celebrations should be performed in the area directly in front of the team bench. If during the pregame or half-time warm-up period one team leaves the floor, the other team should not use the entire court; teams should only warm-up on their half of the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That ruling is definitely still valid.

Originally Posted by Indianaref

... the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. ... (4-36; 5-10-1)

Interesting interpretation. I believe that this very specific situation is one of the few times that the NFHS allows officials to change the clock without "definite knowledge" (see clock, ten second count, three second count, five second count, mental end of period count, mental count of any type (I do this when I believe that the clock hasn't started properly, waiting to see if it starts, and for a good time to sound my whistle), etc.).

This may be the only specific situation where the NFHS allows officials to change the clock based on "educated estimation" alone (no actual count of any type).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Invalid) Definitely never officially stated by the NFHS. Nothing officially stated by the NFHS to the contrary.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Valid) Never officially stated by the NFHS, but often assumed to be true by many, but not all, officials.

I was uninformed and spoke prematurely.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That ruling is definitely still valid. Someone from this forum communicated it to the NFHS and a ruling was issued. Nothing in the rules has changed since that play ruling was issued. It fits perfectly with the current NFHS rules.

Is this our Rosetta Stone? Is this the answer to our questions regarding such? If it's good for one "vanishing" interpretation, is it good for most (or all, assuming no rule change)?

Wishful thinking? No such luck. This idea will go down like a lead balloon.

But it is one small piece of the evidence puzzle for those Forum members that agree with Nevadaref and me.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Old Interpretations Never Die ...

Even then, we still have the issue of old Points of Emphasis.

Nevadaref may disagree with me, but I believe that old Points of Emphasis (like "vanished" casebook plays, and annual one-time interpretations) are still valid as long as there are no relevant rule changes and/or interpretation changes to invalidate such.

Very interesting.

Stupid NFHS.