foul out and free throws with a T

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

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.

No, I would rather check with my interpreters and see if they have the same take. I am not a basketball only officials like you and I have seen how rulings are not always in concert with what the NF uses. Even in basketball last year we were told to enforce the coaching box very strictly, only to now hear our state wants to back off of that philosophy we were told if we do not enforce, we would not work the post-season. Obviously this board and what is said on it means more to you than it does me. I do not work for hardly anyone with people on this board and when things like this happen, I cannot go back to a 5 year old reference as "proof" of my position. So I will ask my state rules interpreters (which have nothing to do with IAABO thank God) and see what they say. Then I will apply whatever ruling they suggest instead of using speculation like we are doing here. Unless you can give me every single ruling since that interpretation from every single publication that the NF put out in the past 5 or 5 years, I will reserve judgment until I ask my people what we are supposed to do.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

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!!!

NF Supplements from where? Were they posted only on the website? Where they listed in the NF Quarterly (the NF does put many of their website rulings in this publication BTW)? Where did this come from? Other than anyone talking on this board I have no idea where this came from. Let us not forget, someone said that the "Rules by Topic" book was not from the NF.

Peace

[RookieDude]

[QUOTE=reffish]

Originally Posted by 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.

reffish...in NFHS you can have two different subs come in and each shoot one of the two Technical Foul Free Throws, right? No time has come off the clock in that situation...and yet you have subs entering/leaving...maybe that is one way to remember it is different than the NBA.

Also...were you thinking there is an issue with "time off the clock" for players that have already been subed for coming back in?

Great discussion BTW...I'm going to bring this one up to the b-ball guys the next time we are sitting around telling lies.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's always a good day when I learn something. If I was wrong and I didn't learn sumthin' from it, well, that wouldn't be very smart on my part.

Didn't a guy by the name of Socrates say something like:

"A true wise man...knows that he is not truely wise."

Once again...JR shows that he is truely a wise man.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Didn't a guy by the name of Socrates say something like:

"A true wise man...knows that he is not truely wise."

The asterisk said "except that jerk JR" (they went thru the second grade together, twice).

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

The asterisk said "except that jerk JR" (they went thru the second grade together, twice).

LMAO...guys...this is a guy you would like to have a brown pop with.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

LMAO...guys...this is a guy you would like to have a brown pop with.

You buying?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

The asterisk said "except that jerk JR" (they went thru the second grade together, twice).

The second grade was the best 5 years of my life.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, I would rather check with my interpreters and see if they have the same take.

And as I said in my first reply, if they they don't have the same take as the FED, then there's a problem with your interpreters, not with the FED's official ruling.

NF Supplements from where?

From, um, the FED. But since you never personally saw it, you don't need to believe it. That's fine. Stay ignorant, IRut. That's a great quality for an official to have.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

NF Supplements from where? Were they posted only on the website? Where they listed in the NF Quarterly (the NF does put many of their website rulings in this publication BTW)? Where did this come from? Other than anyone talking on this board I have no idea where this came from. Let us not forget, someone said that the "Rules by Topic" book was not from the NF.

Peace

Every year, FED issues (about 20) rules interps on the web-site and in OQ. In whatever year this was (2000-2001, iirc), the FED issued (about 20) rules interps and then followed up with additional (about 10) rules interps a couple of weeks later. They were definitely on the web-site and I *think* they were also in OQ.

[JRutledge]

Just so you know.

I emailed Kurt on this question. According to him, this is a correctable error situation. He even referenced the casebook page 60. Then he made the comment that this would be something if it took place his office would hear about.

No reference to 5 year old rulings or justification that I am hearing on this board. Even if what I am reading here is supposed to be used, where is the justification. Most people throw away the NF Quarterly magazines and any other reference that might have possibly supported this ruling. This ruling needs to be in current casebooks if that is what the NF wants. Otherwise you are going to cause confusion with officials that have did not officiated back in 2000-2001 or people that do not have any evidence of this ruling (which would be likely most of us).

For those Illinois Officials that want to see the email, you must email me directly and I will pass it along. I will not take a PM on this email.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just so you know.

I emailed Kurt on this question. According to him, this is a correctable error situation. He even referenced the casebook page 60.

And he's wrong. Just so you know.

Even if what I am reading here is supposed to be used, where is the justification.

In the supplement published by. . . the FED. Which you've thrown away and will ignore, since you would rather be ignorant than know the rule. You are from now and forevermore -- IRutledge.

Enjoy your football season. I'm done trying to help you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

And he's wrong. Just so you know.

Chuck, he may be wrong, but if Kurt Whoever is the appointed rules interpreter responsible for giving out basketball interpretations for the Illinois state association that is affiliated with the NFHS, that ruling is now official in Illinois- only- wrong or not. It will stay official in Illinois until the FED sez different. And yes, Chuck, I certainly realize that your state through your IAABO state-recognized interpreter might issue a completely different ruling, which would be valid for your state.

That is my understanding of the statement in the front of the rule book- "Requests for basketball rules interpretations or explanations should be directed to the state association responsible for the high school basketball program in your state. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from state associations whenever called upon." Rut did exactly that, and got an Illinois ruling.

Iow, it looks like the FED and Illinois might have issued conflicting interpretations.


Bob Jenkins, your take?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

And he's wrong. Just so you know.

I do not care what you say about it. I do care what those from our administrative office say about it.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

In the supplement published by. . . the FED. Which you've thrown away and will ignore, since you would rather be ignorant than know the rule. You are from now and forevermore -- IRutledge.

Enjoy your football season. I'm done trying to help you.

I do not need your help Mr. IAABO guy. The NATIONAL FEDERATION changes rulings all the time in multiple sports without notice or without fanfare. Unless you can provide every NF online notice, then I will stick to what our sports administrator says. Now if you feel he is wrong, send him an email and show him how wrong he is. I was skeptical because there this was in the casebook and other than referencing an internet site (which no one important reads as the basis for their judgments in my state) is going to back up when this really happens. Why not use your IAABO influence to change things so this the NF will not be any confusion anywhere across the country.

I always find it funny how people here that spend a lot of time being very critical of the NF for making mistakes, putting in casebook rulings that do not fly with rules, then in this case they are all of a sudden infallible.

Thank you once again for the laughs Chuckie.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It will stay official in Illinois until the FED sez different.

My point is, and has been throughout this discussion, that the FED already has said different.

And yes, Chuck, I certainly realize that your state through your IAABO state-recognized interpreter might issue a completely different ruling, which would be valid for your state.

I'm not sure why, but you and IRut both mention IAABO in your most recent posts. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with IAABO. These are FED rulings, just as much as the airborne shooter rule in 4-1. I would never tell a fellow official to rule differently than the FED. If the state interpreter knowingly told me to this as a correctable error, I don't think I would do it. And I wouldn't tell my guys on the local board to do it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Chuck, he may be wrong, but if Kurt Whoever is the appointed rules interpreter responsible for giving out basketball interpretations for the Illinois state association that is affiliated with the NFHS, that ruling is now official in Illinois- only- wrong or not. It will stay official in Illinois until the FED sez different. And yes, Chuck, I certainly realize that your state through your IAABO state-recognized interpreter might issue a completely different ruling.

The funny part is I agree with Chuck on many levels with this rule. What I have always disagreed with are these rulings from several years ago and you cannot find the ruling in the current NF books. This is the very reason I emailed the administrator to sort out something that is not very clear. Even in the NF book "Rules by Topic", there is no reference to this issue we are talking about. There is a play that in the book that covers a similar play, but the shooter is not the DQ'd player. Then they insist that anytime the wrong player shoots a FT, this is a correctable error as related to 2-10.

I guess this once again shows the total lack of competence from Chuck and others that feel what they read on this board is LAW. This is why I asked our people to give me a ruling to clear up these issues. If I listen to Chukie, we would enforce some uniform rules that everyone in our state was given when religious and cultural expression were being considered. As a matter of fact, some uniform rules were changed or emphasized to accommodate what we were already doing in our state. I guess the IAABO people know better than everyone else. No wonder people give this organization so much crap.

Peace