The Strange Case Of The Vanishing Casebook Play ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 (vanished from casebook in 2005-06).

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm debating the validity of including old interps or case plays that are not contradictory to the way the rules are currently written. If they are not contradictory, why would a new official not be able to learn the proper adjudication using the current rules in place?

Because some specific interpretations (i.e., 10.6.1 Situation E), often about odd, or rare situations, may not be perfectly or sufficiently explained by rule language alone. While rule language may be sometimes ambiguous, interpretations are almost never ambiguous. Many highly regarded and very competent Forum members have logically and rationally cherry-picked rule language to contradict the interpretation of 10.6.1 Situation E, claiming it was an illegal blocking foul.