Strange Case Continued ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If I send a coach a 2012 citation that no longer is published to justify a 2021 ruling, I'm going to lose all credibility for the organization I represent.

As you should. I do not understand this obsession with old interpretations that never made it into any rulebook. I get if you reference something that once was and it was a standard, but this is not one of those situations.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As you should. I do not understand this obsession with old interpretations that never made it into any rulebook. I get if you reference something that once was and it was a standard, but this is not one of those situations.



Peace

There are assistant coaches who have the rule book on their phones or tablet and will verify information we give them concerning rule citations.

I don't think any of them search through this forum for old citations that disappeared. LOL

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I get if you reference something that once was and it was a standard, but this is not one of those situations.

"Not one of those situations". I agree. This POE is quite odd.

But how is "standard" defined, and who does the deciding?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Not one of those situations". I agree. This POE is quite odd.

But how is "standard" defined, and who does the deciding?

If you are struggling with this, it must be noted that you are nearly alone here (at least in this conversation).

I do not see a lot of people struggling with this. We know there are situations that incidental contact takes place and rule accordingly. Or just call a common foul for contact in other instances.

Do what your higher-ups say to do. Keep it simple. But that does not have anything to do with the rest of us, we do not live where you do. It seems you have issues in your area many of us do not have at all.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not understand this obsession with old interpretations that never made it into any rulebook.

Because one may see it in their game and want to adjudicate correctly?

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, it goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, not a one hit wonder.

There were no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, in 2005-06, so why did it disappear?

NFHS decided to change the interpretation to a foul, but with no announcement?

Deleted due to limited space in the casebook?

Editorial mistake?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This has happened in the rulebook. Defensive matchup after three substitutions (inadvertently deleted in it's entirety). Definition of goaltending (inadvertently deleted outside cylinder language).

4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

The rule hasn't changed. The language in the vanished caseplay still matches the rule language: Unless B1 made some effort (extending arm, leg, rolling, etc.) to trip or block A1, B1 is entitled to a position on the court even if B1 is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

But we can't show a coach, or a young'un official, the casebook citation? Abracadabra. It vanished.

But we can show a 4-23-1 rule citation. Is that enough to rule a legal play?

If so, why did the NFHS bother to have made it a casebook play in the first place? Somebody must have had a question about it?

Could the NFHS have decided to change this interpretation to a foul?

I have a ton of curiosity. The suspense is killing me. Plus, the next time this happens in my game, I want to get it right.

Maybe I''ll get some answers in a few weeks?

Just have to keep my head on straight and not spend too much time in the open bar hospitality room.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because one may see it in their game and want to adjudicate correctly?

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, it goes back to at least 1996-97 (the oldest NFHS Rulebook in my library), so it was a NFHS interpretation for, at least, nine years, not a one hit wonder.

There were no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, in 2005-06, so why did it disappear?

NFHS decided to change the interpretation to a foul, but with no announcement?

Deleted due to limited space in the casebook?

Editorial mistake?



4-23-1: Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent ... Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

The rule hasn't changed. The language in the vanished caseplay still matches the rule language: Unless B1 made some effort (extending arm, leg, rolling, etc.) to trip or block A1, B1 is entitled to a position on the court even if B1 is momentarily lying on the floor after falling down.

But we can't show a coach, or a young'un official, the casebook citation? Abracadabra. It vanished.

But we can show a 4-23-1 rule citation. Is that enough to rule a legal play?

If so, why did the NFHS bother to have made it a casebook play in the first place? Somebody must have had a question about it?

Could the NFHS have decided to change this interpretation to a foul?

I have a ton of curiosity. The suspense is killing me. Plus, the next time this happens in my game, I want to get it right.

Maybe I''ll get some answers in a few weeks?

Just have to keep my head on straight and not spend too much time in the open bar hospitality room.

It would be so funny if the answer came back as "who knows and who cares? What is your question about interpreting the current rule and relevant case plays?"



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It would be so funny if the answer came back as "who knows and who cares? What is your question about interpreting the current rule and relevant case plays?"

Current rule says legal play. Rule hasn't changed since before, and after, 2005-06.

No more caseplay. Vanished into thin air.

Even though I'll probably risk falling into another debate black hole, what says Raymond?

Note: I have a feeling that the college rule may be different (or the same depending on what interpretation one believes) than the high school rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

"who knows and who cares?"

Sounds like someone who spent way too much time in the open bar hospitality room.