New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

I wouldnt worry about this until next year...

I would love to see this in the body of the casebook next year:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You're the one who said that new officials wouldn't be able to figure out how to rule such a play.

Never said it myself, just paraphrasing the rationale of others who had chosen to ignore the interpretation of the caseplay (and ruling differently) after its one and done appearance in the casebook despite no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes after the citation vanished.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never said it myself, just paraphrasing the rationale of others who had chosen to ignore the interpretation of the caseplay (and ruling differently) after its one and done appearance in the casebook despite no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes after the citation vanished.

You said the rules as written wouldn't allow new officials to interpret the "body on the floor" play. You didn't quote somebody else. Why do you keep on bringing up this case play that disappeared? We have rules that cover the play. Why can't people properly interpret that play based on the rules written? Why do you constantly and incessantly bring up this case play that disappeared and ignore the three rules that are in the rule book?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let them speak for themselves.

...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... possibly some who may no longer be active Forum members.