New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration

[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".

[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 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.