New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... one or two other errors that are correctable but are not Correctable Errors

It's an error and it's correctable but it's not a Correctable Error.

Sounds odd when one says it out loud.

Like a bookkeeping error.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would still like to see "point of interruption" OR "original spot" actually written in the rulebook, casebook, etc.

Regarding the new rule about the wrong team getting the throwin, while there is a written IAABO interpretation (above) that allows putting time back on the clock with definite knowledge (can anyone provide a similar written NFHS interpretation that says to put time back on the clock with definite knowledge), can anyone provide either a NFHS or IAABO written reference that directs us back to the spot of the original throwin rather than to the point of interruption?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(can anyone provide a similar written NFHS interpretation that says to put time back on the clock with definite knowledge),

It's in the case plays in the front of the book where they discuss new rules.

Sorry, don't have it handy.

And, it's in the 23-24 interps posted on this site (emphasis added):

SITUATION 5: An official administers a throw-in to Team A, when the throw-in should have been given to Team B. A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and B2 knocks the ball loose. While the ball is loose, the official recognizes their mistake, whistles and awards the ball to Team B for a throw-in from the same spot. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: A loose ball does not change the status of the ball as it is still in Team A’s control. The mistake can be corrected until the status of the ball changes. The clock should be reset to the time remaining when the throw-in was made by Team A. (7-6-6)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's in the case plays in the front of the book where they discuss new rules.

Thanks bob jenkins.



Now that that's fully settled, can anyone provide either a NFHS or IAABO written reference that directs us back to the spot of the original throwin rather than to the point of interruption?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks bob jenkins.



Now that that's fully settled, can anyone provide either a NFHS or IAABO written reference that directs us back to the spot of the original throwin rather than to the point of interruption?

I don't know of any references, but common sense says if we're correcting time with knowledge, then the spot needs to go to the original throw-in unless otherwise stated.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... common sense says if we're correcting time with knowledge then the spot needs to go to the original throw in ...

Common sense tells me the same thing, and I will rule as such until told otherwise.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks bob jenkins.



Now that that's fully settled, can anyone provide either a NFHS or IAABO written reference that directs us back to the spot of the original throwin rather than to the point of interruption?

And, it's in the 23-24 interps posted on this site (emphasis added):

SITUATION 5: An official administers a throw-in to Team A, when the throw-in should have been given to Team B. A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and B2 knocks the ball loose. While the ball is loose, the official recognizes their mistake, whistles and awards the ball to Team B for a throw-in from the same spot. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: A loose ball does not change the status of the ball as it is still in Team A’s control. The mistake can be corrected until the status of the ball changes. The clock should be reset to the time remaining when the throw-in was made by Team A. (7-6-6)

(Yes, I suppose some will question the words "from the same spot." Some of us can't take a pre-game crap without the NFHS specifying that "U1 wipes with the right hand, U2 wipes with the left hand."

[ilyazhito]

The point of interruption is the status quo ante errorem. This means that the status of the game and shot clocks reverts to whatever it was before the error, with the officials administering the throw-in to A that they should have originally received. In this case, Rule 4, Section 36, Article 2b applies.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks bob jenkins.



Now that that's fully settled, can anyone provide either a NFHS or IAABO written reference that directs us back to the spot of the original throwin rather than to the point of interruption?

I know bob jenkins pointed out where you can find the written reference. In the 23-24 interps is a great reference.
But if you read my original post #1, I state putting time back on the clock is on page 4 of the Case Book and in my Post #3 I mention the IAABO Handbook states you go back to the original Throw-in location.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

the IAABO Handbook states you go back to the original throw-in location.

23/24 IAABO Handbook
Page 78
Chapter 9
Throwins And Point Of Interruption
Segment 7
Throwin By Wrong Team
Play 9-34



… Team A is awarded a designated spot throwin at the original throwin spot … the consumed time may be put back on the clock if the officials have definite knowledge.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

I know bob jenkins pointed out where you can find the written reference. In the 23-24 interps is a great reference.

2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 5: An official administers a throw-in to Team A, when the throw-in should have been given to Team B. A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and B2 knocks the ball loose. While the ball is loose, the official recognizes their mistake, whistles and awards the ball to Team B for a throw-in from the same spot. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: A loose ball does not change the status of the ball as it is still in Team A’s control. The mistake can be corrected until the status of the ball changes. The clock should be reset to the time remaining when the throw-in was made by Team A. (7-6-6)

[BillyMac]

IAABO officials, all 15,000 of us, have access to “permanent” written documentation (IAABO Handbook Play 9-34) that, in a situation of a throwin by wrong team, the new throwin is at the original throwin spot, and the consumed time may be put back on the clock if the officials have definite knowledge.

Non-IAABO officials, certainly much, much more than 15,000, have written documentation (NFHS Casebook Comments On 2023-24 Revisions 7.6.6 Situation) only of, in the situation of a throwin by wrong team, consumed time being put back on the clock if the officials have definite knowledge. I'm not sure if the entire interpretation will make it's way "permanently" into the "body" of the NFHS Casebook. Right now, the entire interpretation (including time put back on the clock), is only in the Comments On 2023-24 Revisions. A shorter version of the interpretation, lacking any reference to time put back on the clock (or original spot), is in the "body" of the NFHS Casebook.

Non-IAABO officials also have access to great “temporary” written documentation (2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations Situation 5) that, in a situation of a throwin by wrong team, the new throwin is at the original throwin spot (and the clock should be reset).

As all “annual” interpretations, 2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations Situation 5 may eventually end up in the NFHS Casebook, but that is definitely not a certainty, and if it doesn’t happen, how will next year’s new officials, and all future new officials “down the line”, know this “original throwin spot” interpretation (or the "time consumed" interpretation)?

Will this be another “being tripped is not the same as tripping” interpretation?

2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 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.

The 10.6.1 Situation E interpretation disappeared from the casebook in 2005-06. No relevant rules changed since this casebook play appeared in 2004-05, and then disappeared from the casebook in 2005-06, nor have any conflicting interpretations been published by the NFHS.

Lindsey Atkinson, the NFHS rules editor for basketball, has stated (September 23, 2021) that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS. She also stated that usual reason for still valid casebook plays to be dropped is due to page limitations, when a new caseplay goes in, one usually has to come out.

However, many offiicials subscribe to the idea that “seeing is believing”.

How about it Zoochy, who is from Missouri, the “Show Me State”?

It is my hope that 2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations Situation 5, in it's entirety (original throwin spot and time consumed), ends up "permanently" in the "body" of the NFHS Casebook.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 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.

The 10.6.1 Situation E interpretation disappeared from the casebook in 2005-06. No relevant rules changed since this casebook play appeared in 2004-05, and then disappeared from the casebook in 2005-06, nor have any conflicting interpretations been published by the NFHS.

The only way that young'uns can learn this specific “being tripped is not the same as tripping” interpretation is through the tradition of old, grizzled officials sitting around a blazing campfire with young'uns and telling oral stories.

Of course the rules that this interpretation is based on are still inscribed by the finger of James Naismith on the rule tablets locked up inside the Ark of the Covenant.

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. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

4-37-3: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

10-7-1: A player must not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The only way that young'uns can learn this specific “being tripped is not the same as tripping” interpretation is through the tradition of old, grizzled officials sitting around a blazing campfire with young'uns and telling oral stories.

Of course the rules that this interpretation is based on are still inscribed by the finger of James Naismith on the rule tablets locked up inside the Ark of the Covenant.

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. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.

4-37-3: Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court, provided the player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent.

10-7-1: A player must not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

The combination or 4-23-, 4-37-3 and 10-7-1 are sufficient. We should already know there is a difference between tripping over somebody and being tripped by somebody just through living life.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The combination or 4-23-, 4-37-3 and 10-7-1 are sufficient. We should already know there is a difference between tripping over somebody and being tripped by somebody just through living life.

I agree with you, but over the years we have a few Forum members who do not agree with this "one and done" but important caseplay because it's no longer in the casebook.

Their rationale (not mine) is often along the lines of, "How can an almost twenty year old case play that only appeared for a single year in the casebook and is no longer in the casebook be relevant to officials who have been officiating less than twenty years?".

"How many interpreters/trainers bring up this casebook play as a part of rookie instruction?".

"How can such an official explain this situation to a coach without the benefit of pointing it out in a casebook?".

"Sorry coach, I can't show you the play in the casebook but just go on the internet to the Official Basketball Forum and search for 2004-05 NFHS Casebook: 10.6.1 Situation E".

How many officials still have a 2004-05 NFHS Casebook (I bet that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. has it in his attic library)? And how many officials carry around a 2004-05 NFHS Casebook in their bag (I certainly don't)?

My answer: While the caseplay may have vanished, the rules behind it are still in the rule book and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate it.

Of course, we have this:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Lindsey Atkinson, the NFHS rules editor for basketball, has stated (September 23, 2021) that as long as there are no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, to invalidate such, old vanished interpretations are still officially considered to be valid by the NFHS. She also stated that usual reason for still valid casebook plays to be dropped is due to page limitations, when a new caseplay goes in, one usually has to come out.

However, as far as I know, only IAABO members had access to this interview.

Try explaining that to a NFHS official, or to a young IAABO official, or to a coach "third hand" (isn't that "hearsay").

"Well, some anonymous official (if one can believe that) who goes by the username BillyMac, from a little corner of Connecticut (if one can believe that), in an internet chat room says ..."

As President Abraham Lincoln said, "Don't believe everything one sees on the internet".