New Rule 7-6-6 Throw-in Administration
 

If they allow time to be restored when the official has direct knowledge, then why don't they mention it in the rule. They don't even mention it in the Case book play. The only spot you see it is on page 4 of the Case Book. The very beginning, "Comments on the 2023-024 Revisions". Next year it will be missing.
Also, did you know that if you are correcting the throw-in. You go back to the original Throw-in location. A true 'Do-Over'.

Citation ...
 

I haven't gotten my new rule book and case book.

Really?

Do you have access to 'NFHS All Access'?
If you get an IAABO Handbook, then you will also see wording about correcting the time and moving back to the original Throw-in location

IAABO Handbook ...
 

We get our IAABO Handbooks next week.

Some IAABO board in Maine just put out a new rules video and it confirmed what the OP states. Indeed a true do-over. I don’t think even IAABO would so boldly pronounce this without qualified inside knowledge from NFHS.

But why so vague in the new rules/case books is a mystery to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Goes Maine, So Goes The Nation ...
 

Let's be careful here. This would not be the first time IAABO overstepped its bounds by prematurely making an interpretation before the NFHS.

Last time was in 2014-15 when the NFHS changed from "hit" to "release" on free throws and IAABO interpreted the "limitations" on marked lane space defenders crossing the free throw line into the semicircle a full year before the NFHS weighed in with a rule update (as it tuned out IAABO and the NFHS had the same interpretation, the NFHS was just delayed by one year).

Oddly, the premature interpretation was made by the IAABO International interpreter who was also the state interpreter in Maine, The Pine Tree State

Of course, now IAABO "technically" no longer uses NFHS rules and caseplays, they publish their own rules and "caseplays" (actually call it something else) in their self published IAABO Manual.

In regard to rules questions, the CIAC in Connecticut has actually stated that Connecticut high schools will use "IAABO rules" since Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state.

If IAABO unilaterally decided that a field goal made from behind the division line is four points, then it will worth four points in an IAABO game in Connecticut.

I find this to be quite odd, especially since all Connecticut IAABO members were forced to join the NFHS through the CIAC this new year and $17 was added to our local IAABO dues.

An Actual Do Over In Basketball ???
 

We had our local Interpretation (New Rules) Meeting last night.

Regarding the wrong team getting a throwin being correctable until a dead ball or a change of possession, we were told that the correct team will get the throwin back at original spot (not the point of interruption) and time consumed may be reset if officials have definite knowledge.

Keep in mind that that Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state using IAABO "rules" and "interpretations", however almost everything is based on NFHS rules and interruptions.

IAABO Pre Game Card ...
 

Putting time back
 

So if you can put time back for this correctable error, why can't we do it for the other correctable errors if we have definite knowledge and it is within the time frame?

This isn't a Correctable Error

Because the rule book says we can't?

Written Rule ...
 

I would still like to see "point of interruption" OR "original spot" actually written in the rulebook, casebook, etc.

A mistake by the official giving the ball to the wrong team (error).....recognized before the 1st dead ball (correctable). Just because they are not adding it to the list does not mean we would not be correcting a mistake that was made on the floor. We can go back and forth on this but this is not what I am puzzled about.
Why can we put time back on in this case and not other the other errors? Or is that coming and this is a test scenario on how well we can manage the clocks to see if it can be expanded....

Are you asking us to know why the rule was written as it was? I don't think anybody here was in the room when the correctable error rules were written or when this new throw in rule was written.

So I'll go back to my original answer. The reason why is because that's how the rules are written.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

And, the casebook contains one or two other errors that are correctable but are not Correctable Errors (I forget the details at the moment).

To Err Is Human ...
 

It's an error and it's correctable but it's not a Correctable Error.

Sounds odd when one says it out loud.

Like a bookkeeping error.

Wrong Throw In Team ...
 

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...11a11bac_m.jpg

Regarding the new rule about the wrong team getting the throwin, while there is a written IAABO interpretation (above) that allows putting time back on the clock with definite knowledge (can anyone provide a similar written NFHS interpretation that says to put time back on the clock with definite knowledge), can anyone provide either a NFHS or IAABO written reference that directs us back to the spot of the original throwin rather than to the point of interruption?

It's in the case plays in the front of the book where they discuss new rules.

Sorry, don't have it handy.

And, it's in the 23-24 interps posted on this site (emphasis added):

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)

Definite Knowledge ...
 

Thanks bob jenkins.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...164586b3_m.jpg

Now that that's fully settled, can anyone provide either a NFHS or IAABO written reference that directs us back to the spot of the original throwin rather than to the point of interruption?

I don't know of any references, but common sense says if we're correcting time with knowledge, then the spot needs to go to the original throw-in unless otherwise stated.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Complete Do Over ...
 

Common sense tells me the same thing, and I will rule as such until told otherwise.

And, it's in the 23-24 interps posted on this site (emphasis added):

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)

(Yes, I suppose some will question the words "from the same spot." Some of us can't take a pre-game crap without the NFHS specifying that "U1 wipes with the right hand, U2 wipes with the left hand."

The point of interruption is the status quo ante errorem. This means that the status of the game and shot clocks reverts to whatever it was before the error, with the officials administering the throw-in to A that they should have originally received. In this case, Rule 4, Section 36, Article 2b applies.

I know bob jenkins pointed out where you can find the written reference. In the 23-24 interps is a great reference.
But if you read my original post #1, I state putting time back on the clock is on page 4 of the Case Book and in my Post #3 I mention the IAABO Handbook states you go back to the original Throw-in location.

Thanks Zoochy ...
 

23/24 IAABO Handbook
Page 78
Chapter 9
Throwins And Point Of Interruption
Segment 7
Throwin By Wrong Team
Play 9-34

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...7fbc62e1_m.jpg

… Team A is awarded a designated spot throwin at the original throwin spot … the consumed time may be put back on the clock if the officials have definite knowledge.

Thanks bob ...
 

Wrong Way Riegels ...
 

IAABO officials, all 15,000 of us, have access to “permanent” written documentation (IAABO Handbook Play 9-34) that, in a situation of a throwin by wrong team, the new throwin is at the original throwin spot, and the consumed time may be put back on the clock if the officials have definite knowledge.

Non-IAABO officials, certainly much, much more than 15,000, have written documentation (NFHS Casebook Comments On 2023-24 Revisions 7.6.6 Situation) only of, in the situation of a throwin by wrong team, consumed time being put back on the clock if the officials have definite knowledge. I'm not sure if the entire interpretation will make it's way "permanently" into the "body" of the NFHS Casebook. Right now, the entire interpretation (including time put back on the clock), is only in the Comments On 2023-24 Revisions. A shorter version of the interpretation, lacking any reference to time put back on the clock (or original spot), is in the "body" of the NFHS Casebook.

Non-IAABO officials also have access to great “temporary” written documentation (2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations Situation 5) that, in a situation of a throwin by wrong team, the new throwin is at the original throwin spot (and the clock should be reset).

As all “annual” interpretations, 2023-24 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations Situation 5 may eventually end up in the NFHS Casebook, but that is definitely not a certainty, and if it doesn’t happen, how will next year’s new officials, and all future new officials “down the line”, know this “original throwin spot” interpretation (or the "time consumed" interpretation)?

Will this be another “being tripped is not the same as tripping” interpretation?

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.

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, many offiicials subscribe to the idea that “seeing is believing”.

How about it Zoochy, who is from Missouri, the “Show Me State”?

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.

Oral Traditions ...
 

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.

Seeing Is Believing ...
 

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" (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".

Old Timers ...
 

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".

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?

Being Tripped ...
 

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.

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

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

Vanishing ...
 

Vanishing caseplays and/or one and done annual interpretations.

Rationale ...
 

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

Classic Hearsay ...
 

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

One And Done ...
 

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

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

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

Active ???
 

...

Eleven Years ???
 

Seems like only yesterday.

I think that the NFHS considers it codified with the three relevant caseplays.

Agree.

Contact Above Shoulders

4.19.3 SITUATION F: After a rebound, A1, while holding the ball, pivots and A1’s elbow contacts B1 above the shoulders. A1's elbow is violently and excessively swung at a speed in excess of the player’s torso. RULING: If the contact is violent or excessive, a flagrant foul shall be called. (4-27, 4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

9.13.1 SITUATION B: A1 is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2, who are in legal guarding position. In an attempt to create space, A1 rapidly swings arms/elbows while using the shoulders as pivots (a) without making contact; (b) making contact with an opponent above the shoulders and elbows are moving faster than the body. RULING: In (a), A1 excessively swinging arms/elbows without contacting the opponent is a violation. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in nearest the violation. In (b), this is considered an intentional foul. (9-13-1)

9.13.2 SITUATION: A5 catches the ball on a rebound, “chins” the ball and then turns (with the elbow at the same speed as the body) to make an outlet pass with the elbow leading the way. Prior to releasing the ball, A1’s elbow contacts B5 above the shoulders. RULING: This may be ruled incidental contact or a player control foul.

2012-13 Points Of Emphasis
Contact above the shoulders. With a continued emphasis on reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations the committee determined that more guidance is needed for penalizing contact above the shoulders.
a. A player shall not swing his/her arm(s) or elbow(s) even without contacting an opponent. Excessive swinging of the elbows occurs when arms and elbows are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arms and elbows is in excess of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot. Currently it is a violation in Rule 9 Section 13 Article.
b. Examples of illegal contact above the shoulders and resulting penalties.
1. Contact with a stationary elbow may be incidental or a common foul.
2. An elbow in movement but not excessive should be an intentional foul.
3. A moving elbow that is excessive can be either an intentional foul or flagrant personal foul.

Clear, Precise, Accurate, Complete ...
 

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

Paraphrasing The Rationale Of Others ...
 

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

Rationale To Ignore ...
 

Never said that, or believed that, myself, just paraphrasing (mimicking, sometimes sarcastically, or as a parody) past Forum members who had chosen to ignore the interpretation of the caseplay (and ruling differently in games) after its one and done appearance (using the "done" part as a rationale for their warped interpretation) in the casebook despite no relevant rule changes or interpretation changes after the citation vanished.

Over the years, my response to all of the posted opinions to ignore the casebook interpretation has always been consistently the same: