Interpretations

[Indianaref]

I recently posted an interpretation on Facebook in a discussion group, received this comment below from another poster. Fyi, the interpretation I posted would still be valid today, no overriding rule would have canceled it out. Any truth to this?


"Normally, interpretations issued during the season must be approved by the rules committee at the annual meeting. Those interps that are approved are added to the case book. If this interp is not in the case book, then it was (most likely) not approved and is no longer valid."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

I recently posted an interpretation on Facebook in a discussion group, received this comment below from another poster. Fyi, the interpretation I posted would still be valid today, no overriding rule would have canceled it out. Any truth to this?


"Normally, interpretations issued during the season must be approved by the rules committee at the annual meeting. Those interps that are approved are added to the case book. If this interp is not in the case book, then it was (most likely) not approved and is no longer valid."

I don’t agree. I know of no basis for stating that interpretations issued during (actually just prior to the season) the season by the NFHS are not valid if they don’t eventually appear in the NFHS case book.

I am of the opinion that all NFHS interpretations are valid until explicitly repudiated or overturned by a more recent interpretation or rule change.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I know of no basis for stating that (annual) interpretations issued during the season by the NFHS are not valid if they don’t eventually appear in the NFHS case book. I am of the opinion that all NFHS interpretations are valid until explicitly repudiated or overturned by a more recent interpretation or rule change.

Agree with Nevadaref (the Interpretation King) 100% and will add that I also believe that his philosophy also applies to casebook interpretations that for reasons other than rule changes, or interpretation changes, are dropped (see player on the floor) from the casebook (maybe due to page limitations, or an editorial inadvertent oversight); as well as old Points of Emphasis in old rulebooks (see contact above the shoulders).

Some esteemed Forum members will logically argue that "everything valid" should (must) be in the current NFHS Rulebook and/or NFHS Casebook, and if not, old interpretations, and old Points of Emphasis, not in the current NFHS Rulebook and/or NFHS Casebook should (must) be ignored. Such esteemed Forum members often cite the inability of new, or inexperienced, officials to know such if it's not "in the current book". Certainly a valid point that I do not happen to agree with, and I put the blame for this (making it difficult for trainers to train) on the stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

If a casebook play falls in a forest and no one is around to read it, is it still a casebook play?

Here’s a great example. This casebook play below was in the NFHS Casebook for at least eight years until 2004-05 and then, with no apparent rule change, no announcement, no replacement caseplay, no new interpretation, and no cancellation of the old interpretation, it just disappeared into the ether.

10.6.1 SITUATION E: B1 attempts to steal the ball from stationary A1 who is holding the ball. B1 misses the ball and falls to the floor. In dribbling away, A1 contacts B1's leg, loses control of the ball and falls to the floor. RULING: No infraction or foul has occurred and play continues. Unless B1 made an effort to trip or block A1, he/she is entitled to a position on the court even if it is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

Still valid? It's complicated.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1027230

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post973473

[BillyMac]

If a NFHS Point of Emphasis falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it still exist?

Here's another good example. An eight year old Point of Emphasis. Since then, no apparent rule changes, no announcements, no replacement Point of Emphasis, and no cancellation of the old Point of Emphasis.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis Contact Above The Shoulders
Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

Still valid? It's complicated.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1042092

[JRutledge]

This can be a little complicated. I think it depends on the interpretation and where it comes from. Many times if the NF has not put out an interpretation then if you contact them, they will ask for you to go to your local association and then they will provide you with their interpretation that might hold more water where you live.

I am of the feeling that when things change the NF should update either those interpretations or put them in the book. Sometimes other rules change the scenario or the possible interpretation, so there is often not an update of those interpretations that are in conflict with the newer rules or changes.

I also do feel like something needs to find there way in the books if you want the lesson confused. For example, the contact above the shoulders was just left out there for years and no such clarification has ever been stated that all contact or some contact would be considered an intentional foul. Even this year there was a POE on intentional fouls and nothing was stated about situations where contact above the shoulders was to be considered. So what it leads to are people referencing an 8 or 9-year-old interpretation but not getting any clarification on how or if it still applies. And for officials that are newer coming to the game, they are not likely aware of any such standard to consider plays above the shoulders as an intentional foul any more than they did previously.

It would be nice to get things they considered that are updated in the current literature or do a better job providing references to this information. Honestly, I have no idea where we would find the interpretations posted on this site anywhere else. It just would limit the confusion if the NF put more information out or at the very least posted it somewhere on their website.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This can be a little complicated. I am of the feeling that when things change the NF should update either those interpretations or put them in the book ... referencing an 8 or 9-year-old interpretation but not getting any clarification on how or if it still applies ... officials that are newer coming to the game, they are not likely aware of any such standard ... It would be nice to get things they considered that are updated in the current literature or do a better job providing references to this information ... where we would find the interpretations posted on this site anywhere else ... limit the confusion if the NF put more information out or at the very least posted it somewhere on their website.

... posted and edited every year (removing invalid interpretations, maybe with an announcement of such).

Agree. Well said. Stupid NFHS.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Sometimes other rules change the scenario or the possible interpretation, so there is often not an update of those interpretations that are in conflict with the newer rules or changes ...

Those of us that believe that old interpretations, and old Points of Emphasis, not in the current NFHS Rulebook and/or NFHS Casebook, are still valid fully realize that newer rule changes and/or newer interpretations can, and do, invalidate such old interpretations, and old Points of Emphasis.

However, to JRutledge's valid point, the longer one officiates, the harder it is to keep track of such.

I've always said that learning the rules was the easy part (forty years ago for me). Keeping track of the many changes over the years is the hard part.

There are a few changes that I have to stop and think about almost every time I encounter them, real game, or an exam (arrow after jump ball caught by jumper, arrow after alternating possession throwin kicked by defender).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... for officials that are newer coming to the game, they are not likely aware of any such standard ...

On the other hand, how are experienced officials going to know that old interpretations have disappeared if there is no announcement?

Yeah, I know that we're supposed to study our casebooks every year, but it's easier to spot something different that is there (always noted, or highlighted) than it is to spot something different that isn't there.

Just say'in.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

NF ... will ask for you to go to your local association and then they will provide you with their interpretation ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I put the blame for this (making it difficult for trainers to train) on the stupid NFHS.

And the trainers gonna train, train, train, train, train ... (apologies to Taylor Swift).

Stupid NFHS.

[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.