Casebook 7.5.7 sit A.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm now referring to the new caseplay, 4.19.6.A, brought to our attention by BigCat.



Just change the goaltending in situation (b) to basket interference.

I say same ruling, no basket, with a different rationale, one can't have basket interference with a dead ball up on the ring, or in the cylinder.

I have no idea what you're trying to ask. How about you type out the scenario exactly as you are asking instead of referring back to 15 different posts that we're supposed to cobble together.

Either way I doubt you're asking anything that's not already answered by applying the principles of the respective rules and case plays.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You are seriously telling us that an airborne shooter gets fouled and you're going to let the defense grab the ball off the rim to prevent it from being a successful try?

No I'm not.

I'm telling you that if a player control foul occurs before the defense touches the ball on the ring or in the cylinder, I'm not awarding the basket.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No I'm not.

I'm telling you that if a player control foul occurs before the defense touches the ball on the ring or in the cylinder, I'm not awarding the basket.

Ok... Why do we need to know that? Who is confused about that other than you? Who here thinks you can have basket interference when the ball is already dead because of a PCF?

Are you purposely trying to confuse new officials?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

How about you type out the scenario exactly as you are asking ...

Modified Situation: B1 obtains a legal position in A1’s path before A1 becomes airborne. A1 jumps and releases the ball on a try for goal. Before returning to the floor, airborne shooter A1 charges into B1. (a) Before the foul by A1, B2 commits basket interference; or (b) after the foul on A1, B2 commits basket interference.

[Raymond]

So like I said a few posts above, I doubt you're asking anything that's not already answered by applying the principles of the respective rules and case plays.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Are you purposely trying to confuse new officials?

I'm actually trying to make it less confusing.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I just thought it odd that the NFHS didn't keep the basket interference situation for both (a) before the foul, and (b) after the foul, allowing us to compare apples to apples instead of forcing us to compare apples to oranges.

And I'm still curious as to why bob jenkins thinks that this is a team control foul, makes me think that I'm missing something.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... instead of referring back to 15 different posts ...

My question (which contained the quoted casebook play) was in post #39, the casebook play was quoted in post #38, cited by BigCat in post #37.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm actually trying to make it less confusing.



And I'm still curious as to why bob jenkins thinks that this is a team control foul, makes me think that I'm missing something.

I'm here to tell you as somebody who reads your posts regularly and as someone who has a good track record of explaining rules and principles to new officials that you make things more confusing. You don't clear things up. You refer to multiple different posts and rule citations instead of asking a direct question.

If I'm a teaching a new official that the ball is immediately dead when a player control foul is committed, I don't want you coming behind me and saying "what if it's a basket interference","what if it's a goaltending?". That confuses new officials trying to learn.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why not a player control foul?

Yes, it could be if it were a try. Maybe it wa s a pass that went through the cylinder and eas touched after a foul be A1 -- this would be a TC foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, it could be if it were a try. Maybe it wa s a pass that went through the cylinder and eas touched after a foul be A1 -- this would be a TC foul.

Thanks. Get it. Something outside the purview of the casebook play, a modified situation for additional learning.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... instead of asking a direct question.

My question was pretty direct:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What if (b) had been a basket interference (doesn't have to be a try) situation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... teaching a new official that the ball is immediately dead when a player control foul is committed, I don't want you coming behind me and saying "what if it's a basket interference","what if it's a goaltending?".

Agree, but the casebook play in question, not me (I didn't write the casebook play, nor did I first bring it to the attention of the Forum), took your simple lesson (ball is immediately dead when a player control foul is committed) to the next level.

The purpose of the casebook play was to compare the ruling on a player control foul before a violation to a ruling on player control foul after a violation.

I just thought that it would have been simpler to demonstrate that by comparing apples to apples, having the violations be the same, be it basket interference, or goaltending, in both situations, both before and after the player control foul.

[Raymond]

The case play showed examples of a violation prior to a player control foul and after play control foul. If you are confused by that, shame on you after all these years of officiating. If you are not confused, we don't need you to play proxy for new officials. Let them ask their own questions.

Let new officials learn. Don't dominate the room.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The case play showed examples of a violation prior to a player control foul and after play control foul. If you are confused by that, shame on you after all these years of officiating.

No I'm not confused. Just saying that a casebook play comparing apples to apples would have made it simpler for those who have not officiated all these years.

Wondering why the NFHS took that approach, maybe to kill two birds with one stone, jamming both basket interference and goaltending into one casebook play, with one rationale based on something not being a try, a rationale that doesn't quite fit the other violation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No I'm not confused. Just saying that a casebook play comparing apples to apples would have made it simpler for those who have not officiated all these years.

...

So you ARE playing proxy. Let the room breathe. Let somebody who may be confused ask the questions that help them understand it the best.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk