Case book submissions?
 

Guys, I've been asked to submit suggestions for case plays to be included in next season's case book. I have been asked specifically for plays that would be included under Rule 9. If you have a play that you think would be worth submitting, you can either post it here or email me via the forum.

How about something to do with Section 13 - excessive swinging of arm(s) /Elbow(s)

How about a coach requesting a timeout during the other team's free throw?

:) :) :)

Take away the smilies.....it would be a good idea to get an official clarification on this on and end the arguments.

Chuck, see #22 and #38 on your IAABO refresher exam of this year- the plays relating to a closely guarded count where another offensive player wanders in between the defender and the player with the ball. We've argued that one- it's not definitively covered in FEDlandia whether the count continues or is terminated.

The play Brad mentioned- whether a coach or player can ask for and be granted a future time-out with signalling at the appropriate time.

I'll dig up a few more when I get a chance.

Or what happens if a fan interferes with an obvious OOB. :)

Anything that settles the ambiguity surrounding closely guarded including whether, for purposes of the closely guarded rule, a dribblers path is defined as being in the direction he's traveling, as being directly towards the basket regardless of the direction he's traveling, or both.

Does a legally executed jump stop count as a "normal landing" for purposes of 9-9-3?

How does 7-5-7 interact with POI as per the discussion in http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=24365

Great suggestions. I will definitely include them.

Where's NevadaRef these days? I believe he has a list he's keeping of questions that many of us would like to see answered. If he doesn't show up soon, you ought to email him.

Does "rolling while sliding" (sliding due to momentum from diving on a loose ball) equal travelling?

If a throw in is first touched by a player who is OOB, should the clock start and stop (or never start)?

Clarification on "moves to try for goal" before a 3-second violation.

Should the clock start on a kicked ball during a throw-in?

There was some discussion if, on an AP throw-in, B1 kicks the throw-in pass. Is the arrow reversed?

How about a specific case on an unintentional backboard slap that causes ring vibration which many affect the shot?

By rule, play on right? A backboard slap is either a T (if intentional) or nothing right?

Had a couple plays where a great leaper misses the block and unintentionally slaps the board on follow through. The shot is obviously affected by the board vibration. Sure seems like the shooter is disadvantaged with no penalty. Is that really what the Fed wants?

Z

Yup.........casebook play 10.3.5. There's no other penalties listed than a "T" for a deliberate slap.

Agreed (although in the case you cite, the ball goes in so it isn't the sitch I'm talking about where the vibration caused by the slap affects the shot).

I'm just wondering if they have fully considered the scenario where the slap influences the shot even though it's an unintentional slap of the backboard. They may want to consider making it B.I. in that case. Why penalize the offensive team?

Giving in a T in this sitch is too harsh (and incorrect by rule) but letting the slap cause an otherwise good hoop to not go in sure seems wrong.

Z

Ruling on the "barking dog" and similar plays.....legal or unsporting?

Z, it's my understanding that both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers have looked at this type of action, and they both want it called the same way:
- judgement call as to whether the the slap was deliberate or not.
- no judgement on BI except for what is already listed in FED 4-6 and the corresponding NCAA rule.

I've seen cases too where I've thought a hard, legal slap on the board mighta helped to make a ball spin out. I dunno. Maybe the FED and NFHS are afraid of putting <b>too</b> much judgement into this type of play though. I can hear the coaches now..."you called BI against us last half. They just slapped the board. Whereinthehell is the BI? That's not fair. You're screwing us. I want my mommy!". Take the additional judgement out and you're not gonna get that (hopefully...neverknow).

Thanks Jurassic.

Z

PLAY: (a) A1 or (b) B1 is preparing to shoot the second of two FTs. While the shooter is holding the ball, Coach A tells the official, "I want a TO if s/he makes it." The FT is successful. Without any additional request from the coach, the official grants a TO to Team A. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A1 is closely guarded by B1. A2 is momentarily positioned between A1 and B1, as A1 goes around A2's screen. Official continues the 5-second count. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A1 is closely guarded by B1. A2 steps between A1 and B1 and holds a position between them. Official continues the 5-second count. Is the official correct?

PLAY: Team A scores a successful field goal. While B1 is holding the ball for the ensuing throw-in, A2 and B2 are charged with a double foul. Official puts the ball in play at the point of interruption and allows B1 to make the throw-in from anywhere along the endline. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A1 dives to the floor and secures control of the ball. A1's momentum causes him/her to roll over while sliding on the floor. Official rules this a traveling violation. Is the official correct?

PLAY: The clock is stopped with 50.3 seconds showing. Team A is awarded a designated spot throw-in. A1 releases the throw-in and (a) the ball is immediately kicked by B1 or (b) the ball is first touched by A2 who is standing out of bounds. After the violation, the clock shows 49.6 seconds. The official rules the clock should not have started and directs the timer to reset the game clock to 50.3 seconds. Is the official correct?

PLAY: Team A is awarded a throw-in on the endline under its own basket. While A1 is holding the ball for the throw-in, A2 falls to his/her hands and knees and starts barking like a dog. As Team B's players are distracted by A2, A1 passes to A3 for an uncontested lay-up. Official rules this a legal play. Is the official correct?


Comments? Additions?

PLAY: A held ball is called and the alternating possession arrow favors Team A. While A1 is holding the ball for the throw-in, A2 and B2 are charged with a double foul. Official rules that the point of interruption is the alternating possession throw-in and instructs the table to switch the arrow after A1's throw-in. Is the official correct?

I think a bigger question here is when A2 steps between A1 and B1. That seems to be what I remember being discusses to most...as when A1 goes around a screen by A2.

Exactly. I started to posted the same thing. The count continues if B2 steps between A1 and B1. But what about A2?

Maybe I am mistaken here, but I thought Rule 6 had language that said a personal foul by either team during an AP throw-in does not cause the arrow to change.

Would this not apply here? (Or perhaps this is what is to be clarified) :confused:

Good catch. I'll go back and edit those two.

You're correct, but in this case, it's a double foul. Double fouls go to the point of interruption. So the question is, is the POI simply a throw-in b/c that's what was happening (no change in the arrow), or is the POI the alternating possession throw-in (change the arrow).

Chuck, this is what I"d like to see addressed.

A1 is dribbling the ball "east-west", and B1 maintains lgp within 6 feet and in the east-west path. Obviously, if A1 turns and dives toward the basket, the count stops. But what if A1 gets head and shoulders past B1 in the "east-west" direction?

Forgive me Chuck but these sound more like IAABO exam questions, rather than case play submissions. I am :confused:.

Tony, he's written the question that the committee will then add to, by writing the Official Ruling. See 5.12.4 Situation B for an example.

They're not good enough to be FED exam questions? :)

Yes, they have test question format. I thought it was easier to get across what we wanted a ruling on. If I just wrote the sitch and then "RULING:", I was worried that it might not be clear exactly what we were asking about. How would you suggest I re-write them for case plays?

Okay.

I guess that makes sense.

Probably not a good idea to ask you for the ruling. :D

Well, the official is definitely NOT correct if s/he allows A1 to make the throw-in. ;)


I think I'd rephrase as"A1's momentum causes him/her to slide on the floor. While sliding, A1 rolls over on his / her back and continues to slide."

After a time-out following a made basket by team B with 4.2 seconds left in a period, A1 is OOB on the endline for the throw-in. A1 throws the ball to A2 who is also OOB on the same endline. The timer started the clock by mistake when A2 touched the ball. Immediately after A2 caught the ball, he threw a pass to A3 inbounds at approximately center court. Immediately after A3 caught the ball, the horn went to end the period.
RULING: The official gave team A a throw-in at the designated spot closest to where A3 caught the ball in-bounds and reset the clock to show 3.2 seconds left. Was the official correct?

Inquiring minds need to know!

Clock Situation...
 

I have one similar to JR's.

Tie game. Team A throw-in in frontcourt with 7.0 seconds. A2 catches throw-in, shoots, and scores. B1 immediately retrieves ball, commences throw-in. As ball is in the air for Team B's throw-in you recognize that clock is stopped at 5.0 seconds. B2 catches pass near mid-court and clock then starts.

I've included this one. Any others? I'm going to send in the plays tomorrow.

We talked about this one for a while. I just thought of it.

PLAY: A1 jumps to attempt a try for goal. While airborne, the ball slips from A1's and travels straight up. A1 catches the ball and returns to the floor. Official rules this was a fumble and player control was lost, so there is no traveling violation. Is the official correct?

What do you think? Is it worth including?

Yup, iirc, some people here did agree with that.

Won't you be surprised when "some people" turn out to be right!! :D

I would not only be surprised, I would be amazed and flabbergasted.:D

The same kind of amazement as when "some people" were right about the illegal throw-in being an immediate violation? :p

<b>Any</b> time you're right, I'm totally amazed.

Just laid that one right out there, didn't ya?:D

Here's two more for you.

(1) The official notices that A1 has dried blood spots on his uniform top. A's trainer states that he has sprayed the blood spots, and the spots are now dry and non-transferable to another player. The official rules that A1 still cannot play in the game unless he wears a uniform top that is completely free of all blood spots, dry or otherwise. Was the official correct?

(2) A1 is an airborne shooter with the ball still in his hands. Defender B1, who does not have a LGP, approaches A1 from the side or rear and gets a hand on the ball while trying to block A1's shot. After this legal block, B1's subsequent momentum causes sufficient contact on airborne A1 to take A1 forcefully to the floor and out-of-bounds. The official ruled that the contact by B1 on airborne A1 was not a foul because it followed a legal block. Was the official correct?

Ok, here's the final list. I sent it this morning. It'll be fun to see if any of these make it to the book.

PLAY: (a) A1 or (b) B1 is preparing to shoot the second of two FTs. While A1 is holding the ball, Coach A tells the official, "I want a TO if s/he makes it." A1's FT is successful. Without any additional request from the coach, the official grants a TO to Team A. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A1 is closely guarded by B1. A2 is momentarily positioned between A1 and B1, as A1 goes around A2's screen. B1 is still within six feet of A1. Official continues the 5-second count. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A1 is closely guarded by B1. A2 steps between A1 and B1 and holds a position between them. B1 is still within six feet of A1. Official continues the 5-second count. Is the official correct?

PLAY: Team A scores a successful field goal. While B1 is holding the ball for the ensuing throw-in, A2 and B2 are charged with a double foul. Official puts the ball in play at the point of interruption and allows A1 to make the throw-in from anywhere along the endline. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A1 dives to the floor and secures control of the ball. A1's momentum causes him/her to roll over while sliding on the floor. Official rules this a traveling violation. Is the official correct?

PLAY: The clock is stopped with 50.3 seconds showing. Team A is awarded a designated spot throw-in. A1 releases the throw-in and (a) the ball is immediately kicked by B1 or (b) the ball is first touched by A2 who is standing out of bounds. After the violation, the clock shows 49.6 seconds. The official rules the clock should not have started and directs the timer to reset the game clock to 50.3 seconds. Is the official correct?

PLAY: Team A is awarded a throw-in on the endline under its own basket. While A1 is holding the ball for the throw-in, A2 falls to his/her hands and knees and starts barking like a dog. As Team B's players are distracted by A2, A1 passes to A3 for an uncontested lay-up. Official rules this a legal play. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A held ball is called and the alternating possession arrow favors Team A. While A1 is holding the ball for the throw-in, A2 and B2 are charged with a double foul. Official rules that the point of interruption is the alternating possession throw-in and instructs the table to switch the arrow after A1's throw-in. Is the official correct?

PLAY: After a time-out following a made basket by team B with 4.2 seconds left in a period, A1 is OOB on the endline for the throw-in. A1 throws the ball to A2 who is also OOB on the same endline. The timer erroneously starts the clock when A2 touches the ball. A2 immediately throws a pass to A3 inbounds at approximately center court. Immediately after A3 catches the ball, the horn sounds to end the period. The official gives team A a throw-in at the designated spot closest to where A3 caught the ball in-bounds and resets the clock to show 3.2 seconds left. Is the official correct?

PLAY: A1 jumps to attempt a try for goal. While airborne, the ball slips from A1's hands and travels straight up. A1 catches the ball and returns to the floor. Official rules this was a fumble and player control was lost, so there is no traveling violation. Is the official correct?

PLAY: The official observes blood on A1's uniform jersey. The blood is (a) recent/wet or (b) old/dry. The trainer assures the official that the blood cannot be transferred to any other player. The official rules that A1 may continue to use the jersey. Is the official correct?

Mr Annoying Grammar Guy is wondering how you missed this.

Anyway, good list. I like it as if I had compiled it myself.

No, I'm not. "Barking like a dog" is incorrect grammatically? Why? Is this not an acceptable simile? :confused:

Glad you liked the list, tho.

You should take your argument to this Bartleby guy, I could care less (...or should that be I couldn't care less...??).

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/033.html

Interesting. I'm not sure my usage falls under the "slang" uses he mentions, but it's interesting to consider. I was using "like" to mean "akin to" (not really a simile), which I thought would be correct. I'd like to hear Juulie's thoughts on it.

Even tho Dan couldn't care less. :)

"Barking like a dog" is using "like" as a preposition, which is permitted, according to the Bartlesby link. The verb of the prepositional phrase is implied here ("Barking like a dog does") to avoid stilted usage.

"I could care less" is a sarcastic abbreviation for "As if I could care less", or the more likely "Like I could care less". There is no punctuation for sarcasm, unfortunately. When will smilies be added to the grammar books? ;)

Not that I could care any less, but I think your example argues against Chuck's usage. IMO it should be "Barking as a dog does".

What happened to this one?:confused:

Honestly, I didn't think it was worth it. It's so obviously a foul from the description that it doesn't need a ruling. The real question being asked is one of philosophy, not of rules. By rule, it's obviously a foul. I don't think the case book will include a note on philosophy of a legal block. If you strongly disagree and really think it needs to be included, email me and I'll send in another email with that play.

Naw, I just get tired of arguing it.:) Just trying to make the point that there is more than one philosophy out there. Personally, I just call each situation individually anyway. I don't believe in "always" or "never" when it comes to fouls.

I'd prefer not to.

A1 is holding the ball while standing out of bounds during a throw-in. (a) A1 extends the ball across the boundary plane and A2 (a TEAMMATE) touches the ball, but does not take if from A1's hands. or (b) A2 (a TEAMMATE) reaches through the boundary plane and touches the ball, but does not take it from A1's hands.
In both cases, A2 then ceases contact with the ball and A1 makes a throw-in pass to A3. Has a throw-in violation been committed?



Just don't ask Tony! :D

I think that the one we argued was A2 touching the ball <b>in-bounds</b> while thrower A1 was holding it through the plane. Iirc, you said that wasn't a violation and others (:) ) said it was.

Yep, yep, you're correct. I'll go edit the play to include both cases. Of course, I believe that both are legal.

I checked in a couple of my old grammar books from college, and I think both would agree that barks like a dog is grammatically correct:

The Holt Handbook, 4th Edition, says:

"When used as a preposition, as indicates equivalency or identity [my emphasis]. 'After classes he works as a manager of a fast-food restaurant'.

"Like, however, indicates resemblance but never identity [my emphasis]. 'Writers like Carl Sandburg appear once in a generation.'"

Barks like a dog clearly indicates resemblance, not equivalency or identity.

The Hodges' Harbrace College Handbook, 7th Edition, says:

"In general usage, like functions as a preposition; as and as if (or as though) function as conjunctions. Although widely used in conversation and in public speaking, like as a conjunction is still controversial in a formal context....In such elliptical construcions as the following, however, the conjunction like is appropriate, even in formal context. 'He is attracted to blondes like a moth to lights.'" This again indicates resemblance, not equivalency or identity.

Hodges' Harbrace defines a preposition as "a function word that always has an object, which is usually a noun or a pronoun; the preposition with its object (and any modifiers) is called a prepositional phrase." In barks like a dog, dog is the object of the prepositional phrase and like is the preposition (function word) that describes the barking.

Of course, I suspect no one really give a sh!t. :rolleyes:

You are almost correct Corndog.

Actually no one gives a sh!t.;)

You all already know that I'm pretty strange, so I have no problem admitting that I find it very interesting. Especially the part about using "like" as a conjunction. That would not have occurred to me.

Like we care...errr...as if we care...errr...

btw I asked my dog what he thinks about this whole thing. He said "BARK! BARK!"

Like a tree?

So, this guy walks into a bar with a dog, and announces he has the world's only talking dog. Everyone gathers around, and he proceeds to ask the dog a question:

"What's on the top of a house?"

"Roof!" says the dog.

A few people groan, so the guy say, "Wait, you'll see!. What's on the outside of a tree?"

"Bark!" goes the dog.

Now the crowd is grumbling and walking away. "No, wait, I can prove he really does talk. Honest! Let me ask one more question: Who was the greatest baseball player of all time?"

Someone from the crowd yells out, "Yea, right; he's gonna say "Ruth". So what?" And the crowd quickly disperses.

The dog looks at the guy and say, "Actually, I was going to say DiMaggio; I think he was a better all-around player."

Just so people know I'm trying to keep this on-topic, (:rolleyes:) I'd be interested to see the barking dog play clarified in the casebook.

Geeze, of course not like a tree

Like a dog.

I included it, but can't promise it'll end up in the book.

BTW, you're only about 3 years late with this joke. :p

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...ggio#post85972

Figures. At least you've got good taste. :p

DOH! (now babbling to get a long enough answer)

Ok, I asked for everybody's help in assembling these questions, and I finally got a reply. I guess that I sent them too late to discuss at last year's meeting. In any case, these are the questions that we submitted. The blue text is my explanation of exactly what we were trying to clarify, and the red text is Mary Struckoff's ruling, as related by my friend on the committee.

Seems like Mary sided with me on the fumble in the air, and sided with JR on the dried blood. In any case, thanks to everybody who helped with this. I hope the answers are still interesting to people after all this time.

Now Dan can insert a comment about me not being here anymore. :)

Thanks Chuck for the insights and info.

You know how when you step in dog crap and the stink lingers even after you clean it off?

Yeah you're still here all right.

Iirc, I was right on 5 out of the 7 that she answered. We differed on the "barking dog" which I thought was silly but OK, and the fumble by an airborne shooter which I though was traveling(still do:) ).

Of course, after seeing some of her other rulings....as in the backcourt one from last year.....:D

Put on your <i>lederhosen</i>, go out to the local <i>beerhaus</i>, have several steins of <b>real</b> beer and do a l'il <i>oom pa pa</i>-ing. Maybe meet a few new friends and see if you've got time to invade France while you're there also. It might put you in a better mood.

Btw, we alerted Customs about your return. It's a good thing that you <b>enjoy</b> full-cavity searches, isn't it?

Oh goodie..the unsporting police. Whilest I agree with JR it being silly, I wouldn't have labelled it unsporting.

What if I train the cheerleaders do it??:D

Sexual Harassment lawsuit.

Correct in NCAA. In Fed. the count continues.

I think count ends.

Should not because it was not legally touched inbounds.

Hope this helps.

WTF?:confused:

Nope, it doesn't help at all. Notwithstanding the fact that some of your answers are completely different (and wrong) than the answers provided by the NFHS, all that you are doing is completely confusing things.

In Chuck Elias' post #68 made on May 11, 2008, , the red-highlighted answers at the bottom of each play is the approved FED ruling that was received to those questions. In the 7 plays that you posted, you have answered #1, #4 and #7 completely wrong from the answers received back from the NFHS. That really ain't much help.

You also didn't happen to notice by any chance that you just responded to a post made in July of 2006? :)

It would have been more helpful if you hadn't ignored this part of Chuck's post: Unless you are on the committee, of course.

What's the rule say?

The rule is vague with room for interpretation. Personally, if the clock does start, I don't think you can correct it as a timing error.

My percentage was MUCH higher! :D

But I'm still with you on that backcourt ruling.

Why couldn't you? If you're the chopping official, and you never chopped because the violation happened simultaneous with the touching, then you have knowledge that no time should have elapsed. If you know a second came off the clock, I don't see why you couldn't correct it.

Yep, since the NFHS added the word "legally" last year the clock should NOT start per rule, and that makes this a timer's error which can be corrected with proper knowledge.

I was stressing the "touches" part before the or is legally touched. I think if you'll just over analyze it like I did, you'll see I might be right.

Ok I'll bite, do you happen to know the link to this particular backcourt play in question?

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Yup, it cites R9-9-1 to back it up, and 9-9-1 contradicts this ruling.

Silly monkey.:rolleyes: