foul out and free throws with a T

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Officiating a game where entertainment is the main priority has gotta be harder than hell to do.

Nah, just ask the WWE refs. Piece of cake.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

True, but from the lack of any definitive direction from anywhere else, I think that you have to accept what is available, and what is available is the ruling that Bob cited. I usually print out the rulings off of the FED web site, but that particular year is missing in my records...unfortunately.

This is a situation where I would ask for a current ruling from our rules interpreter. I would not be surprised if I do not get the same answer as this interpretation back in 2000.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a situation where I would ask for a current ruling from our rules interpreter. I would not be surprised if I do not get the same answer as this interpretation back in 2000.

With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), that would be a problem with your interpreter and not with the ruling. Once a ruling is issued, it is valid until a rule change or different ruling is issued.

[reffish]

So after all the debate, I am not sure what the ruling is. Before the FT, player A, who fouled out with the T, is removed from the game and substitute shots the FT (and must remain in game until after time on clock is run).

If Player A shoots FT, and before ball is put in play, after the T shots, substitute player for A comes in, must he shoot the FT or points stay and the ball is given to team who shot the T?

Thanks for all the answers posted. Didn't realize this would cause a commotion.

Also, what would the ruling be in NCAA M and W?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), that would be a problem with your interpreter and not with the ruling. Once a ruling is issued, it is valid until a rule change or different ruling is issued.

Well that is not true at all. We have had rulings in the past that did not go along with past rulings that are no longer in the casebook or rulebook. For the life of me why the NF would not put this ruling in the casebook? This is a very unique situation and I would think would still require this ruling if they want everyone to be on the same page. Many of you might work only basketball and you are not aware what the NF does in other sports as it relates to these rulings in one year and change them in the same season or the following year. It is very common for them to have rulings in other sports only to come back later and correct them. It does not happen in basketball as much because the sport is not a very rules intensive sport. In football this year there were a few casebook mistakes and things that did not go right along with the wording in the rulebook. I will still ask for a ruling from my state and because of the relationship our state has with the NF, I am sure they will get a ruling right from the NF.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by reffish

So after all the debate, I am not sure what the ruling is. Before the FT, player A, who fouled out with the T, is removed from the game and substitute shots the FT (and must remain in game until after time on clock is run).

If Player A shoots FT, and before ball is put in play, after the T shots, substitute player for A comes in, must he shoot the FT or points stay and the ball is given to team who shot the T?

Thanks for all the answers posted. Didn't realize this would cause a commotion.

Also, what would the ruling be in NCAA M and W?

NFHS: If the fouled out player is removed properly, the sub shoots the FT's. If the official crew did not recognize that the player was disqualified and he is allowed to shoot, the FT's are allowed and this does not fall under the correctable error rule.

EXCEPTION: If you are Rut and don't want to admit that you might have missed one, you trot out the old overused "regional thing" or "my interpreter can beat up your interpreter thing" and ignore all the evidence.

Z

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by reffish

So after all the debate, I am not sure what the ruling is. Before the FT, player A, who fouled out with the T, is removed from the game and substitute shots the FT (and must remain in game until after time on clock is run).

The sub can leave at almost anytime (the sub must shoot all of A's FTs); and certainly the clock need not run.

If Player A shoots FT, and before ball is put in play, after the T shots, substitute player for A comes in, must he shoot the FT or points stay and the ball is given to team who shot the T?

The points stay. A was a legal player at the time s/he shot the FTs. It's not a correctable error.

Thanks for all the answers posted. Didn't realize this would cause a commotion.

Also, what would the ruling be in NCAA M and W?

Same ruling

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is not true at all.

Yes it is.

We have had rulings in the past that did not go along with past rulings that are no longer in the casebook or rulebook.

But until the next ruling came out, the previous ruling remained in effect, right? That's exactly what I said above:

Once a ruling is issued, it is valid until a rule change or different ruling is issued.

The interpretation doesn't become invalid simply b/c it doesn't get put in next year's casebook. The interpretation remains in force until the rule changes or a conflicting interpretation is issued.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Yes it is.

But until the next ruling came out, the previous ruling remained in effect, right? That's exactly what I said above:

The interpretation doesn't become invalid simply b/c it doesn't get put in next year's casebook. The interpretation remains in force until the rule changes or a conflicting interpretation is issued.

OK.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK.

Cool. Jurassic's not the only one who learned something in this thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Nah, just ask the WWE refs. Piece of cake.

Whaaaaaaaat????

How would you like to have someone knock you out during a game, and when you woke up you had to make an instant call?

Or have to try to catch players taking foreign objects outa their unis to whack their opponent with?

Or worry about midget players playing tricks on ya?

Or if you miss a call, someone tries to put you through a table or hit you with a chair?

And know that you will get no backing at all from that evil Mr. McMahon and his dastardly kin.

It ain't as easy as it looks on tv, my vertically-challenged friend. It takes a special individual to be an arbiter in the WWE.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Cool. Jurassic's not the only one who learned something in this thread.

Actually Chuck I do not agree with you. It is football season for me and right now we are debating issues just like this based on rulings that were not in the NF publications, but contradict what the rules say (breaking the huddle with 12 is a great example of this) I disagree with your point of view on this and I am not looking for anyone to agree with me.

Then again, we do not have IAABO interpreters where I live. I am just going to end the conversation because you feel you are right.

Peace

[reffish]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]The sub can leave at almost anytime (the sub must shoot all of A's FTs); and certainly the clock need not run.

You are right, I thought the sub could not leave untill the clock started and stopped.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by reffish

You are right, I thought the sub could not leave untill the clock started and stopped.

That is an NBA rule. Not everything you see on TV applies to the NFHS game.

As Bob told you, in high school after a substitute enters there is no requirement for this player to remain in the game for any amount of time on the game clock.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually Chuck I do not agree with you.

Of course you don't; because you'd rather be argumentative and remain ignorant. That's fine, if that's what they do in your area. But I'm telling you what I know from conversations with members of the NFHS rules committee. If that's not a good enough source for you, feel free to wallow, my friend.

we are debating issues just like this based on rulings that were not in the NF publications, but contradict what the rules say

Who cares? We're not talking about "rulings that were not in the NF publications". We're talking about a NFHS supplement, published by -- wait, let me think. . . oh, yeah! -- the NFHS!!!