New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration

[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

[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