New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"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?".

Of course, a recent National Association of Sports Officials survey tells us that the average age of a basketball official is 56 year old, so many of us are aware of this almost twenty year old casebook play, but eventually many of us will retire, or die, the "Circle of Life".

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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:



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".

"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".

I'm confused as to how this response is related to what I just posted. The combination of the 3 rules you posted make it clear how to differentiate between tripping and being tripped. How is a new official affected by the missing case play?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm confused as to how this response is related to what I just posted ...

Because over the years, some on the Forum have disagreed with you (I agree with you) and believe that this exact case play situation is always a "being tripped" (blocking) foul, giving rationales (above) for why the case play in question should be ignored.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because over the years, some on the Forum have disagreed with you (but not me) and believe that this exact case play situation is always a "being tripped" (blocking) foul, giving rationales (above) for why the case play in question should be ignored.

Whether or not everyone agrees, that still doesn't change the fact that those three rules in combination tell us there is a difference between a trip and being tripped. Therefore I don't see why you keep on bringing up the new official thing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

How is any of this germane to throw-in administration?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

How is any of this germane to throw-in administration?

Vanishing caseplays and/or one and done annual interpretations.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 Raymond

Therefore I don't see why you keep on bringing up the new official thing.

I don't. Those that disagree with, and ignore, the vanished caseplay do, despite the fact that the three rules haven't changed since the caseplay was published and then vanished.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't. Those that disagree with, and ignore, the vanished caseplay do, despite the fact that the three rules haven't changed since the caseplay was published and then vanished.

That still doesn't mean newer officials can't properly adjudicate the play based on published rules, which is what you were claiming up thread.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

That still doesn't mean newer officials can't properly adjudicate the play based on published rules, which is what you were claiming up thread.

No, it was other Forum members who were claiming such in the past, possibly some who may no longer be active Forum members.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No, it was other Forum members who were claiming such in the past, possibly some who may no longer be active Forum members.

What other forum members? It is the same 5 of us talking over and over again. People have gone to other places to discuss things partially because we get off on the rails about things that have nothing to do with the original conversation. This is a great example of that fact.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What other forum members?

While I don't remember them by name, I do remember their rationale for ignoring the interpretation of this one and done casebook play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While I don't remember them by name, I do remember their rationale for ignoring the interpretation of this one and done casebook play.

Why are you speaking for them? You're the one who said that new officials wouldn't be able to figure out how to rule such a play. You posted the three rules that give all the guidance needed. You are the only one in this thread who posted anything about newcomers not being able to figure it out based on the current rules published.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[SNIPERBBB]

I wouldnt worry about this until next year...

I'm still hoping they actually codify the neck/head contact with a swinging elbow one of these decades.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

I wouldnt worry about this until next year...

I'm still hoping they actually codify the neck/head contact with a swinging elbow one of these decades.

I think they did that already. Saying that contact above the shoulders was not automatically anything. You could judge it as something intentional or flagrant, but not a requirement if contact takes place. Case book 9.13.1 and 9.13.2 covers this to some extent.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While I don't remember them by name, I do remember their rationale for ignoring the interpretation of this one and done casebook play.

Let them speak for themselves. They are not bothering us with this silliness. If they have an issue then they can ask. For one new people do not know the difference unless someone points out to them the difference. I did not know the rules before me that well and never worried about them. I only worried about the application of the rule that was in front of me. Stop trying to speak for people that are not raising an issue. Trust me, there are plenty of people who speak on issues they do not understand. These are not children.

Peace