Interpreter's Conference Call

[ronny mulkey]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

Being and IAABO Board rules intepreter is no different than being the rules interpreter for any local basketball officials association. An interpreter is an official who has studied the rules in detail, knows the rules, casebook, and officials manual forwards and backwards, as well has an understanding of the history of how the rules have been developled.

I would also say that since he served two terms on the NFHS Rules Committee and still represents the Maine Principals Association (a member of the NFHS) to the NFHS Rules Committee, I would say (as well as many other people who have positions of authority in the various StateHSAA's around the country) that Peter Webb is the formost expert on NFHS rules in the country.

And from Chuck's telephone conversation with Peter, it sounds like Peter gave the same interpretations that I gave per the NFHS Rules.

MTD, Sr,

When IAABO was responsible for training and testing in Georgia, Peter Webb was recognized as being a rules expert.
I am sure that his ruling agreeing with your ruling was purely coincidental. Or, are you implying that you also are recognized as one of the country's foremost experts?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Are you in Vermont? The Region 1 member is from Vermont.

Yes. [And I should clarify that only IAABO states may choose to go with Pete's interpretations.] Dan Shepardson, whose son is in Iraq at the moment, is the interpreter. I will ask him about TOs from players only.

The issue of propsed rule changes was discussed on the conference call as well. When the topic of not allowing coaches to request TO came up, you would not believe the chorus of "Amen"s that arose. Glad I suggested it!

I would believe that chorus. Of course, that would mean the players would have to LISTEN to the coach.

One thing that will change here in VT will be that coaches and captains will meet the officials together at the pregame conference.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey

When IAABO was responsible for training and testing in Georgia, Peter Webb was recognized as being a rules expert.
I am sure that his ruling agreeing with your ruling was purely coincidental. Or, are you implying that you also are recognized as one of the country's foremost experts?

It wasn't coincidental that our rulings agreed. Great minds think alike.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Peter Webb is a personal friend of mine.

[ronny mulkey]

Great One,

Key difference is that OTHER people recognize him as being an expert. He isn't declaring himself as THE foremost expert. You won't find him on this board lambasting other poster's opinions or lack of knowledge. Real experts would be too busy to be on here, anyway.

You should follow his example.

Mulk

p.s. purely coincidental

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
Great One,

Key difference is that OTHER people recognize him as being an expert. He isn't declaring himself as THE foremost expert. You won't find him on this board lambasting other poster's opinions or lack of knowledge. Real experts would be too busy to be on here, anyway.

You should follow his example.

Mulk

p.s. purely coincidental

Ronny:

It was a joke. Lighten up will you.

And while Peter does not post on this forum, he and I do discuss plays that are posted on this forum.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 15th, 2006 at 04:51 PM]

[truerookie]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I just got off the conference call and I brought up a couple of situations that we've discussed recently involving double fouls.

1) Team B scores. While A1 has the ball OOB for the throw-in after the score, A2 and B2 foul each other at the same time. Does Team A retain the privilege of running the endline?

Peter Webb's answer is no. The ensuing throw-in is not the result of a score, but of a double foul. This is not a common foul, therefore the throw-in is from a designated spot.

2) A1 and B1 create a held ball. The alternating possession arrow favors Team A. While A1 has the ball OOB for the AP throw-in, A2 and B2 foul each other at the same time. Will the arrow be switched after the resulting throw-in?

Peter Webb's answer is no. Team A never completed its AP throw-in and the ensuing throw-in is NOT an AP throw-in. Therefore, the arrow is not switched.

The call ran long and I did not bring up the question about the varsity player that dunks during the JV halftime. I think that we hashed that one out pretty well on the forum, tho. No T, right?

Just passing it along.

Chuck,
I would like to thank you for providing the feedback. Personally, I am not concerned about the geographical location of the feedback. This feedback will be added my continuity book. Thanks!! You are a Great American.