On our state's IAABO open book test this year we had the play where, during a throw-in, a player jumps from his frontcourt, catches the throw-in, and passes to a teammate who is standing in the backcourt. (Backcourt Violation Quiz Play 3B.) Some people answered the question correctly using poor reasoning, but most answered incorrectly. If I were not a regular reader at this forum, I wouldn't know the answer. I know the rule says that the player may "return to the floor", but it seems like a rational inference that it would be legal to make the pass. At this forum, I also learned that disconcertion during a free throw also applies to a coach, even though he is not an "opponent".

Anyway, I am not looking for help with specific rules. This is the second year that I am teaching the class to prepare prospective officials to take the written test, and I want to teach them rules or cases that are not documented in the current rulebook or casebook. They do not have a library of old books and interpretations. One lives in a college dorm room and doesn't even have an attic.:) I have saved a few books from recent years, but how do I find all of these old interpretations? I am starting a file of such cases as I discover them, but how do I know what I haven't discovered? Where do I tell my students to look for such answers?

The rules are in the book, you simply have to bring the proper references together to make a determination.

In the BC play, allowance is given to the airborne player that allows him to land. It does not allow him to pass the ball to someone in the BC. Why? How do we know he would have landed in the BC? When he catches the ball, he has FC status. That's why it's a violation.

As for the disconcertion situation, again, apply the definition and the penalty as well as the rule. The penalty says, "... disconcertion by an opponent...," not player. The fact that it doesn't say player means that it's the entire opposing team, not just the 5 players on the floor.

IOW, the rules are in the book. The interpretation arises from being able to know all the rules that apply to a particular situation.

Clarification
 

BktBallRef,

I don't mean to be a jerk, but are you suggesting that we need the casebook and interpretations just for officials who don't understand the rules and their applications? It seems to me, that some language in the rules is not entirely clear to rational, intelligent, and experienced officials. Occasionally there are disagreements in this forum, even among those who consistently exhibit an excellent knowledge of rules and their applications. I chose my examples because I had encountered them recently and perhaps there are better examples. For instance, in the line-up for free throws (Rule 8-1-4), it tells where “opponents” and teammates “may” stand. (Since is says “opponents” should I assume that the coach can stand there?:)) Later, the Federation clarified that players might also stand in some other places. Before the clarification, quite reasonable people had assumed another meaning.

My point is that officials who have been around for five or ten years may remember interpretations and situations that the Federation never included or has phased out of their casebook. For officials taking their first test (closed book for IAABO) or even for those taking their second or third test (open book in New Hampshire), how are they suppose to know all of the not-currently-in-print interpretations? How can I know them so I can teach my students?

backcourt quiz
 

C'Mon fellas, all officials know theres no backcourt violation on a throw in, no matter where you stand or jump!

Re: backcourt quiz
 

Oh?

Try reading NFHS rule 9-9-3 and case book play 9.9.1SitA. Note that R9-9-3 <b>only</b> applies to the player in the air coming from the front court that catches the throw-in. If that player passes to a teammate in the backcourt, then it's a backcourt violation as BktBallRef said above. You may just change your opinion after reading those cites.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 26th, 2005 at 05:56 PM]

Re: Clarification
 

Rick, all BktBallRef is telling you is that sometimes you have to string several different rules together to make the right call. To do that, you have to know and understand all the current rules and case plays. In a perfect world, the FED would issue a case play for every single situation that could possibly come up. That's really not a logical option.

The reason most of us post here is because we're still studying- and still learning. I know I'm in that group.

Re: Clarification
 

You said that, not me. I suggested nothing of the kind.

Case plays aren't removed from the Case BOok unless the rule changes. I have Case Books going back 15 years and they have the saem plays in them that are in the present version, plus what's been added since.

Well, I apologize Rick. I guess I don't know how to explain it clearly enoungh. But I stand by my previous statements, whether I was able to effectively communicate them to you or not. Your question sat unanswered for almost 6 hours. I guess others had difficulty answering it, too. Bottom line, I don't believe there are in rules that aren't found in the book.

Exactly what are you trying to say? Are you saying that it's legal for A1 to inbound the ball to airborne A2, who jumped from the FC and then passes to A3 in the BC?

I wish I could change the subject of my original post, but I don’t think I can. I should have used “Interpretations not in the Book” or “Situations…” instead of “Rules…”. I am going to try one more time to see if I can write clearly enough to make my point, and then I am going to let it go.

It sounds like what I am hearing is that there should be no reason for NFHS to publish interpretations or clarifications because all of the answers are in the book if one can just figure out how to piece it together. I am hearing that a diligent reader should be able to interpret accurately every word in the rulebook. If that is true, then the only answer to my original question is to read the book and assume that whatever meaning I make from my reading must be what the rules makers meant.

However, I believe that it is possible for two conscientious people to come to two different, logical conclusions from reading the same language in the rulebook and casebook. When that happens, we need the NFHS to tell us what they intend the words to mean. The Federation (Was Kirk the Speaking Captain?) periodically releases interpretations with information that doesn’t necessarily make it into the rulebook or the casebook. I am trying to find and learn as much of that information as possible, so that I can pass it along to my students. I have learned a lot from regularly visiting this forum. I posted the question so I can learn even more so that I improve my teaching. By my learning, I can improve the learning of my students.

BktBallRef, I apologize if I seemed ungrateful for your response. I really do appreciate it, and I concede that all of the rules are in the book. I wasn’t sure if casebook situations were ever removed even if rules. I understand the casebook changes when rules are changed.

Jurrasic, thank you for your response, as well. I appreciate it.

Many of the interpretations that never make it into the Case Book. I'm not sure why, as it would seem like a smart thing to do. But they don't.

As I told someone on another thread, writing a rule book is English Composition, not Mathematics or Science. There are many situations that are gray instead of black and white. Instead of focusing on those gray areas, why not just focus on the basics, which is what a young official needs most.

For example, waiting for my game, I sat and watched the JV game in front of me last Tuesday. The JV Girls went to OT. They were about to start the OT with the AP arrow. Fortun ately, the home team had the arrow and I was sitting opposite table on that end. I got up, walked to the L and asked, "Is this OT?" "Yes." "Then why are you starting it with a jump ball?" He went and told his partners what I had said and then still discussed it for 2 minutes before they decided to toss it. :(

Rick, I would focus on the basics and answer questions on plays as they're brought to you. It's not possible to teach them everything they need to know in a clinic seting anyway. 50% of it is OJT anyway. None of us know it all. So encourage them to read the books, the website and to participate in these types of boards. That's all you can do.