New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration

[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.