foul out and free throws with a T
 

I was scorekeeping a game and this happened. Player A drives to basket and is fouled in the act of shooting. He is frustered for some reason and kicks the ball. Whack! Officials get together and decides to adminster the foul throws first and then the T next. However, as player A shots the second, I realize that the T was his fifth. I was not able to notify the officials until after the second throw. I told the officials that was his fifth, and he was removed before the T shots. The question, if I was able to notify the officials about the fifth foul before his free throws, what should have happened? The crew discussed the situation and we had two paths discussed, both of which made sense. Thank you.

A player is ejected when the coach is notified. Until then, he is just aplayer with 5 fouls that gets to shoot foul shots. If you told the officials this player had 5 fouls, the proper procedure would have been to bring in his/her substitute and that substitute would shoot the free throws.

These FTs are with the lane cleared, as are B's for A1's T.

I am assuming that "he" is the player that was fouled during the shot attempt?

If that is the case, then the sub would be the one shooting the FTs. This would be a correctable error situation and the sub for the fouled out player would have to re-shoot the FTs.

You always shoot the FT attempts in the order in which they took place.

If the "he" was the player that committed the foul on the shot attempt, then you just inform the officials and they would continue after the fouled out player is removed.

Peace

Cancel both of A's made FT's and have his substitute re-shoot them after A has been replaced. Team B will then get their 2 FT's and the ball for a throw-in at center... for A's technical foul.

The error was correctable as it was permitting the wrong player to attempt a free throw( as per NFHS rule 2-10-1c ), and it can be corrected as the error was caught before the first dead ball <b>after</b> the clock started(as per NFHS rule 2-10-2). You correct it using NFHS rule 2-10-4 also, thus cancelling A's FT's.

Also see case book play 2.10.4.

That's the only way to do it, rules-wise.

I can see merit to both sides in this mess. However, at the moment, I agree with the reasoning of JugRef. You don't cancel the FTs even though the officials made a mistake in allowing this player to remain in the game to shoot them.

Of course, this means that I disagree with Rut, no surprise there :) , but it also means that I'm on the opposite side of JR, which I've learned is dangerous ground and means that I really need to support my position.

So here's my support:
The logic:
A. The player who was actually fouled shot the free throws and since he had not yet been disqualified at that time he is allowed to attempt them and the points count. Thus this is not a 2-10 correctable error situation of the wrong player attempting FTs.

The rule in the book:
B. 2-11-11 Note 2: "The procedure if a player who has committed his/her fifth foul continues to play because the scorer failed to notify the officials is as follows: ..." "Any points which may have been scored while such player was illegally in the game are counted."

However, this is followed by the next sentence, "If other aspects of the error are correctable, the procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials." That makes it nice and muddy and gives JR something in the rules book to point to in defense of his method.

Also I thought that there was an interp issued on this a year or two ago. I'll have to check.

In NCAA Rules, the Technical FTs would have been shot first. So if you noticed the mistake the player had fouled out before the shooting foul FTs were taken, then you would not have a correctable error (if the same time frame applies) . You would have to wait until the T'd player was removed from the game and then continue with the subbed player shooting the shooting foul FTs.

Peace

Read the case book play that I cited- 2.10.4. That should change your mind.

Iow, you're wrong. I'm right. And worse, JRut was right also. :eek:

You mean the rulebook extraordinaire who posted all that crap cannot read a simple casebook play? Naaaaaaawwwwwwoooooaaaaaa.

Peace

2.10.4 is not germane to the play in the original post. In 2.10.4, A1 is fouled and A2 takes the FTs. In the play under discussion here, A1 is fouled and A1 shoots the FTs.

The relevant rule is 4-14-2. A1 is not DQ'd until Coach A is notified of A1's fifth foul. A1 continues to be a player until that happens. So we have a player shooting FTs that he is entitled to (since he was the player that was fouled). There has been no error. The FTs stand, and the player is removed as soon as the mistake (not "error") is discovered.

Case 4.14.1C is the closest match, although the opponent is shooting the FTs. The FT that is already shot stands, then the DQ'd player is replaced and the game is resumed.

Case book play 2-10-4 suresasheck <b>is</b> relevant. That case play talks about a <b>wrong</b> player being allowed to shoot FT's. Player A is the <b>wrong</b> player in the op.

How can case play 4.14.1C be relevant in any way, shape or form? :confused: In that case play, the <b>DEFENDER</b> fouled out, <b>NOT</b> the <b>SHOOTER</b>. Apples and oranges.

We're talking about a <b>wrong</b> player being allowed to shoot FT's that he didn't really have coming because of disqualification, Chuck.

In the original post, player A was fouled. Player A also fouled out <b>before</b> he could shoot the 2 FT's that he had coming. The replacement for player A is supposed to shoot both of A's original FT's. Ergo, if player A was allowed to shoot any FT's, he was the <b>wrong</b> player to do so; his replacement was the <b>right</b> player, by rule. Sez so right in rule 8-2- <i>"The freethrows awarded because of a personal foul shall be attempted by the offended player. If such player must withdraw because of an injury <b> or disqualification, his/her substitute shall attempt the throw(s) unless no substitute is available"</b>.</i> Iow, because a wrong player shot the FT's, as per R2-10-1(c), we have a correctable error. That correctable error was caught in time, as per R2-10-2. It was also supposed to be corrected as per R2-10-4, which states that any FT's taken by a wrong player are cancelled.

You and Nevada are trying to bring in rules that ain't really relevant to this sitch.

There is no error in this situation. Player A may have committed the foul that should have fouled him out before the FTs but the rules quite clearly indicate that the player doesn't actually foul (become disqualified) out until the coach is notified. As such, there was no disqualification to force the player to withdraw and the correct player (the one who was fouled) shot the free throws. Only when that player has legally been disqualified does his substitute become the correct shooter. Any actions that occur prior to that point in time are valid.

<u><b>Case Book Play 4.14.1 SITUATION A: DISQUALIFICATION</b></u>

<i>A1 is fouled by B1 while team A is in the bonus. The covering official is at the table reporting the foul when A1 is charged with a technical foul by thje official who is observing the players. The foul on A1 is his/her fifth.
<b>RULING:</b> A1 is disqualified as both personal and technical fouls are counted. Because A1 has been disqualified, he/she will not be allowed to attempt the free throw(s) resulting from B1's foul. The substitute for A1 will shoot the free throw(s). (8-2)</i>

And if A1's substitute <b>doesn't</b> shoot the free throws, it now becomes a correctable error under rule 2-10, yada, yada, yada......

Do you people honestly feel that the FED intended to throw the correctable error rule and everything else that I cited down the toilet just because a disqualified player wasn't notified? He was still disqualified, wasn't he?

Unless you can tie the language of 4-14-2 into this specific situation, and also come up with something that sez that rule trumps everything else cited so far in the rule or case books, then I ain't buying it.

This is exactly where you are incorrect, JR. He never was disqualified. Therefore, he is an eligible player throwing a live ball into the basket. That can't be undone b/c he was supposed to be disqualified. Failing to DQ a player is not a correctable error. My rule citation above is the relevant one to this play, as Camron just pointed out.

No, he wasn't. This is made explicit in 4-14-2. I don't see how you can set this rule aside.

Just to add one more thought. Your case play deals with a player who fouled out and was disqualified. The case play I cited has to do with a player who fouled out but was not disqualified. In my case, the action before the player was properly DQ'd was allowed to stand. That's what I think is similar to the play under discussion.

NO! He was not.

This case is only marginally relevant in our situation; it only matters in the situation where the disqualification occurs before the FTs are taken. A1 is not disqualified until the coach is notified....you can't throw that rule out just to make your argument work. Until A1 is disqualified, A1 is the correct player to shoot the FTs. It doesn't matter what should have happened. A late disqualification is not a correctable situation.

And I think that you, Camron and Nevada are completely wrong too.

Guess we need an NFHS ruling from somewhere(and please don't give me an IAABO ruling or a ruling from some rules interpreter out in Portland who doesn't have any stroke either; they're about as <b>official</b> as I am).:)

This mighta been a good one to send in to the FED....way back.

FED 2000-2001 Basketball Interpretations, Supplement #1:

SITUATION 6: A1 is fouled and Team A is in the bonus. Before A1 attempts the one-and-one, A1 is whistled for a technical foul for taunting. A1 goes to the free-throw line to attempt the one-and-one with no players lined up. A1 makes the first free thtrow, then the horn sounds and the scorer indicates that A1's technical foul was the fifth foul on A1. RULING: The result of A1's first free throw shall stand and A1's replacement shall attempt the remaining free throw (if the first was successful), before Team B shoots its technical free throws. COMMENT: This is not a correctable error for a wrong player attempting a free throw. A1 was not officially disqualified until the coach was notified.

That'll do it for me.

I stand corrected. Good catch, Bob.

Those rulings usually go into the next year's case book. That one didn't. Wonder why.

Maybe the NF does not go along with that ruling today. After all this was about 5 years ago. The NF has been known to change interpretations from one year to another. If that is what they want, they sure are not using their books very well to make that clear.

Peace

Hey Rut, :p !

At least JR is man enough to admit when he is wrong.

JR believes in 5 and 6 year old rulings, I do not.

Peace

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=23954

This thread contains a similar situation involving an injury in which Bob provided the definitive NFHS interp from 2000-01. It is likely this one which I was remembering when I wondered about an NFHS interp in my earlier post.
Also in a post during that thread, I mentioned the play with the T and failure to disqualify. I knew that I had written about this play before on this forum! :)

It seems that 2000-01 really had some significant play rulings and strangely I don't have a copy.

Bob,
Since you seem to still have them, and the NFHS doesn't have an online archive of its interps, would you please post the entire 2000-01 interps, including all the supplements, if there was more than one, or if there was an original list and then that was followed by a supplementary list?

(I believe that Situation 1 is going to put a point in JR's column. There is a traveling play involving a fumble by an airborne player which we have been debating, and apparently I'm on the wrong side of that one! ;) )

After I shut off the computer last night, I also remembered that this play is specifically covered in the NCAA rulebook as an AR in the rule section for "Disqualification".

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.

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.

Jurassic,

From the post I have read I thought you hated the NBA. It seems by your previous ruling that you love it. Had this play happened in a NBA game you would have been right on the top of it.

And you said you didn't like the NBA.


Warning: This post was written as a light hearted joke. Please take no offense.

Uh-oh...don't be messing with Jurassic...rumor has it he's gone off his Metamucil in the last few days...not a good idea to make him angry!!

Actually, I'm just not fond of the kinda ball the NBA is playing right now. Everything is highlight-reel stuff... dunks, no-look passes, etc....and a lot of the supposedly best players in the world can't really shoot, dribble or make a basic pass. Everything is entertainment rather than actual competition. If I wanted to watch sumthin' like that, I'd watch the AND1 tour. The basics are missing imo, and it's showing up at the World Championships and the Olympics. When a country like Greece can beat a hand-picked NBA team, you got major problems.

Of course, there still are a few teams in the NBA that are watchable...example Phoenix.

I feel sorry for the NBA officials. They gotta be the most critiqued officials group in the world, in any sport. Every call that they make is gone over with a microscope. Anymore, I think that their job has become basically impossible to do. Officiating a game where entertainment is the main priority has gotta be harder than hell to do. Not mentioning morons like Mark Cuban either....

That's just my opinion. Other people love the current NBA model of play. Good for 'em. Everybody to their own taste.

Nope, not my Metamucil. My Lithium.

I know where you live.:eek:

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

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

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.

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?

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

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. :rolleyes:

Z

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

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

Same ruling

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

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

Whaaaaaaaat????:confused:

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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

[QUOTE=reffish]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. ;)

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.

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

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

You buying?

:D

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

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.

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.

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.

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

And he's wrong. Just so you know.

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.

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 <b>in</b> 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- <i>"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."</i> 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?

I do not care what you say about it. I <b>do care what those from our administrative office</b> say about it.

I do not need your help Mr. IAABO guy. The <b>NATIONAL FEDERATION</b> 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

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

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.

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 <b>"Rules by Topic"</b>, 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

1) Disagree. Isn't IAABO the recognized rules-interpreting body for high school basketball in your state? If so, then that is where IAABO is involved and that is why I mentioned it. Unless I've got the whole procedure wrong, your IAABO state interpreter is the person responsible for issuing official FED rulings for your state, similar to Kurt ? in Illinois. Right?:confused:

2) Are you serious, Chuck? If your state interpreter issued a ruling, you wouldn't follow that ruling because you personally disagreed with it? I can't agree with that stance either. Wouldn't the proper procedure be to ask your state rules interpreter to get a further ruling from the FED Rules Committee before telling the world that he is wrong?

I would certainly hope that a state would never intentionally come up with a ruling contrary to a FED ruling. Mechanics seem to have a life of their own and we can live with that.... but how confusing it would be for a coach to learn the rules and then have a state do their own thing in direct contradiction to a "book rule."

The only time that I have ever seen a protest upheld in our state it was because an official screwed up a rule. Imagine a game that ended in dispute and the school protested because the official screwed up an NFHS rule. Then the state office says, "no, we decided to put our own rule in instead." Have fun with that one.

Hey Rut, did you specifically tell "Kurt" about the FED interp that directly contradicts what he said? I've talked to our state rule interpreter before and been given a certain ruling. When I called him back later with some info that conflicted his initial ruling, he admitted mistake and changed his mind. "Kurt" might do that too if pointed to the Fed ruling.

You referred to a case play where the DQ's player is not the shooter. I assume you are talking about case play 4.14.1 Sit C. You are right that the DQ's player is not the shooter, but the whole point of that case is noted in the Comment: "This is an official's error and not a correctable error situation." Again, that supports Chuck's (and everyone else's) view.

Z

P.S. For someone who doesn't care about what anyone thinks on this board, you are sure going to the ends of the earth to try to not be incorrect. :)

There's where we disagree also. Aside from personal issues, Bob Jenkins supplied an NFHS ruling that is fairly recent. That ruling is <b>LAW</b> imo until something further is issued.

You got a further ruling from Illinois apparently. That means that that ruling is now <b>LAW</b> in Illinois. It doesn't necessarily mean that your ruling is <b>LAW</b> in Chuck's state. Chuck's state could issue a completely different and conflicting interpretation, and that interpretation would now be <b>LAW</b> in Chuck's state.

The only real solution imo is to get a definitive, current rules interpretation from the FED which would apply to <b>all</b> states.

Somebody on this Forum being right or wrong shouldn't be an issue. The issue should be getting an official interpretation that everyone on this Forum can agree with, so that the right call is made if this situation ever comes up.

Whoa there, Bunky......

What do you mean "everyone else"?

I didn't agree with Chuck's view. Still don't. Not that it really matter though. If the official FED view is different than my personal view, the FED wins....every time.

No I did not. I asked the question similar to the way it was originally asked here. I did not want a ruling based on what I personally felt either way. I also did not give my take of the play or what my opinion was either way. I wanted a ruling. I did not want my point to be supported. In my opinion if the ruling that was posted by Bob was a solid ruling, then Kurt would have known about it (or should have known about it). Remember this 5 and 6 year ruling is supposed to be the law. If it is law, I should never have to “inform” an administrator of the contents. These guys worked with Mary Struckoff personally, I have not. So if Mary Struckoff once was the over the Official’s Department and the current NF Basketball Rules Editor and Supervisor of Officials in NCAA Women’s Basketball, then they can ask her directly what the interpretation should be. All I wanted was an interpretation to clear up either a ruling mistake or something left out.

I have to care becasue I post on a web site? Dude, if I cared, I would post under another name and I would agree to just be agreeable when I clearly have a different opinion.

Peace

Easy there grumpy. :D

I didn't mean that you agreed with the ruling, I meant that you agreed that the Fed had ruled on this issue as to NOT be a correctable error. Now if I could only remember what the original issue was. :)

Z

That's what I figured. See, these rules interpreter's don't always remember every single ruling that came along. Just like we have to crack the books once in a while when we get a little hazy on a rule.

I'm quite certain that had you pointed him to that fed ruling, he would have said, "well, there you have it Rut. It's already been ruled on." Any rules interpreter that I have ever known would not intentionally contradict a ruling from the FED.

Z

No. The FED is responsible for issuing FED rulings. Our state interpreter (any state interpreter) is there to make rulings where there is no definitive ruling from the FED. IAABO is not a rules-making organization. If my state interpreter intentionally gave me a ruling contradictory to the FED, that would make my state association a rules-making organization; and he's not authorized to do that.

That's absolutely not correct. However, if my state interpreter knowingly gave me a ruling that was contradicted by a FED ruling, I would disregard the his ruling. If he told me that a blarge was to be administered by yielding the call to the official who primary responsibilty, I would try to correct him by pointing out the correct FED interp. If he said, "I know, but I hate that ruling, so this is how we're going to do it in MA", I would tell him flat out that's not how we're doing it in Springfield.

I get my training from IAABO. I get my rules from the FED.

Exactly, Z. But it's more fun for IRut to be argumentative.

JR,

We really do not disagree at all. The original take on this play was based on the fact of what we could find in the current literature. Some people that had another take had every right to point out a contradiction. My contention is always when there are these obvious holes in the rules, you go to your local association, state administration or local rules interpreters to iron it out. I just wanted clarification because I did not want to go to a game and have this happen and take what we said here as evidence of being right or wrong.

In most associations I belong to in all my sports, we have meetings weeks before the actual season starts and many times before there are rules interpretation meetings. We debate over similar issues like this discussion. When people bring up old rulings, immediately we try to get an official ruling from the IHSA Office or IHSA Rules Interpreters. It is not completely uncommon that we get multiple rulings that do not coincide with each other. It is also not uncommon that the interpretation that we are given is not what the NF wants or listed in their publications. For example we were given a zero tolerance with the coaching box last year. I know in football when PSK was put into the rulebooks, there were some multiple interpretations that did not mess with the rules and our state said, "THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT HERE THIS YEAR." Then when the NF makes a ruling that clears up the confusion, we do what they want unless our state takes a position differently than what the NF wants.

I have always understood that what my state might do might be different than what another state does. I have also read many times where someone from a state says they were instructed to something the NF does not want whether it is mechanics or rules. I know for a fact that NF puts out guidelines and an individual state can throw out all the NF guidelines if they want to. We have states using the shot clock and there is no where covering this rule. Do you see people telling them not to use that rule and the NF is the only way to go?

I think it is arrogance for anyone to think what they feel matters to people in other states. I have never officiated in another state and do not plan to anytime soon. If I do move I will conform to their wants and needs like the thousands that have to change things every time they move. I am sure what IAABO does is important to Chuck and what they rule is important to Chuck. But Chuck is very hypocritical when he has many times made claims of rulings that were handed down by his brass and those rulings were not in concert with the NF. Or the ruling was not given directly by the NF. I have read many times when you JR have called him on it.

I completely respect the knowledge that Bob J has. But Bob J and I are just officials. We are not clinicians or rules interpreters. We work for the state when they decide to assign us post season. I cannot speak for Bob J, but I did not get to where I was by trying to be right when the IHSA takes a position that is different than what I understand a rule to be. Kurt made it clear that this might become something that a "Special Report" would be filed on and he would hope the official used the proper ruling. Unfortunately, that ruling was not from 2000-2001.

Peace

No matter what I said, it would not have mattered to you. So if you feel he is wrong, do what I suggested little Chuckie do. It is not like his email address is not public.

Peace

I think you are a little uptight because the Red Sox are not going to the playoffs. :eek:

Also Chuck you are FLAT OUT WRONG about the role of rules interpreters from each state. A state can make rulings and they do make rulings outside of the NF all the time. If that was the case there would have been a girl here a few years ago that would not be allowed to play basketball and sweats because she was Muslim and did not want to wear any shorts or that did not fit the color requirements. I guess I was being argumentative when they made that ruling and issued a statement to every basketball official to allow this even though it did not fit the "NF rules" to the letter. They allowed a girl to wear gray sweats and a long T-shirt because she was Muslim and did not want to show as much skin based on her Muslim Religion. Some officials did not allow her to play (as they should of when using NF rules) and then were told to ignore the rule. The same goes for a male player that is wearing a head dressing that clearly under NF rules is not legal. He has a letter from the IHSA office allowing him to wear this head dressing in order to express his religion. So why are these things OK and your assertion correct? These rulings were issued to tell officials to ignore the strict rule in cases of religious expression and when players and teams had been informed.

I guess you know. ;)

Peace

Grumpy? <i>Moi?</i>:confused:

I agreed that Bob J. supplied a FED ruling that stated that my opinion was wrong. That FED ruling is now definitive as far as I'm concerned. Iow, as stated before, I was wrong. Now we have a conflicting Illinois ruling. Well, that rule is now a definitive ruling in Illinois imo. That doesn't mean that it's also a definitive ruling in the other 49 states. And that is unfortunate, and that is why we need something new out of the FED that will apply everywhere. It's not a matter really of any official here being right or wrong; it's a matter of getting a ruling that we all can use uniformly.

Make sense, Z?

Chuck, I know where you're coming from. This one is kind of a unique situation though. I can see different state interpreters issuing conflicting rulings, even with the existence of an old NFHS handout. Jmo, but I think that this one needs to go in the current case book someplace, and only the FED can do that.

Unless all interpreters read rulings posted here or hold on to several year old rulings, then all 50 states are not going to be on the same page. We cannot get different officials in different areas in my state to always agree. If the NF feels strongly about this ruling, they should update their books to support it. I have yet to receive this year's rulebook. Who knows maybe this will be covered in a clearer manner.

Peace

Just a coupla points from my perspective......

1) If IHSA through it's rules interpreters handed down an interpretation on this play, then that IHSA interpretation is now an official ruling for all of Illinois.

2) Bob J. did not hand down his <b>opinion</b> or <b>interpretation</b>. Bob supplied us with an NFHS-issued ruling. Afaik, that ruling is an official ruling also and is still in effect, until the FED issues another ruling contradicting it.

Therein lies the problem. We got dueling rulings, and I don't really have a clue which one the FED currently prefers. I do know that Illinois officials should be following the IHSA-issued ruling until something else comes out, but that doesn't apply outside Illinois.

Interesting situation....

I've got my new books. Nothing has changed with regards to this one.

Once again, I agree with you for the most part.

The only part I would disagree is this is something that other states would not draw a similar conclusion. The NF does not even have this ruling in their current books. You can let them know of whatever ruling once was posted, but you are assuming they will buy that. They might have similar questions as to why this cannot be found in the current books. This was my main concern and why I asked our state guy to give me an answer. I am sorry I did not lead him to an answer that fit everyone. I feel if you know something, I do not need to lead you anywhere. He gave me a ruling on something in the spring and I did not ask a leading question. I asked him what the ruling was and he cleared it up.

Peace

Look out folks, I am going to AGREE whole-heartedly with Rut on this point! :)

Why the NFHS issues these rulings and fails to insert them into the case book and keep them there each successive year is a mystery to me. Perhaps it cuts down on the number of pages in the books and thus saves them some money in printing cost. If that's the reason, it is certainly a poor one, especially when compared to the value of having a clear ruling for these situations in print and available to current officials. The very least the NFHS could do is create an archive of these past interpretations on its website and make that accessible to the public.

The NFHS drops the ball, in my opinion, whenever they do this.

Not when there is a clear, in print, ruling directly from the FED. It's not a matter of me disagreeing with the interpreter but a matter of the FED already having a ruling on it.

This is not unlike court cases. The legislature writes the laws, people take the issues to court. The court writes their ruling on the matter. That ruling stands until a higher court says otherwise or the lawmakers change the law.

Interpretations are written to help understand what the rule was meant to do....just like court decisions. Those interpretations do not change just because a new opinion is not published in the current year. It stands until some action occurs to change it.

Should it be in the casebook? Perhaps. The case book would be several times the size it is today if they did put ALL prior (and still valid) interpretations in. Those that are the most commonly faces and the most interesting do get in...but not all. Personally, I will all of them were there with notes about the year they were published. It would make it easier.

Camron,
I understand exactly how it works and the legal analogy is a very good one.
However, there are huge law libraries with the Federal Supplement books and computer databases with ALL of those past court decisions in them that are available for purchase no matter how old they are. So a lawyer can go buy the book from 1985 and have a copy of those rulings, if he needs them.

The situation with the NFHS rules books and case books is not like that. Other than MTD, I don't know of anyone that has an extensive library of past volumes of these books. The NFHS does not maintain an archive of them on its website. Furthermore, my state office doesn't have copies from even the past five years.

So, if someone is a new official where are they going to go for this information? How are they ever going to know about an interpretation that was published ten years ago? If it weren't for this forum, I wouldn't know about the 2000-01 rulings because I never saw the books or any interps from that season. I was living in Austria that year and did not officiate NFHS basketball.

So Bob Jenkins how about putting the whole list from that year up for me? Please!

I understand that the NF destroys old books. I am sure they might keep some around, but they destroy most of the books. Or that is what someone was told when trying to get old books for a football class that is run in our area. This might be one example as to why you cannot get these books from past years.

This has always been my point when we look at several year old rulings. These rulings may not always apply and sometimes they change without warning. I would not be surprised if there was another ruling in that time frame that contradicted this ruling back in 2000-2001. I think you need a copy of all the rulings from 2001-2006 to know for sure if this still stands. Either way it goes, ask your local people what they think. If you want to inform them of every ruling known to man, do that as you see fit.

Peace

Interesting discussion.

I called my board interpreter to get his take. With no prompting, he said it was a correctable error. I challenged him, citing the rule (4-14-2) that a player is not disqaulified until the coach is notified. He did not budge. Then I told him of the 2001 Fed ruling. That got his attention. He called another interpreter, who had the other view -- the one that backs me and the Fed. So my interpreter called me back and said his ruling is now that the points stand because of the clear language of 4-14-2.

In the end, he said he did not have a good explanation as to why the Fed issues a ruling, but does not keep it current. As I review the casebook plays like this, it seems that the "obvious" rulings remain in the case book, but this one gets pulled out. As for the Illinois ruling, I wonder if the interpreter would have a different view if he had all the facts -- as my interpreter did.

I would think so if he was pointed to the 2001 ruling. Our state has had a few interpreters and I never knew any of them who intentionally conflicted with a FED ruling. Most rule interpreters would probably appreciate getting all the info rather than having given out a conflicting interpretation. I know our current state rule interpreter has been given info before that has led him to change his interp and he has appreciated the help.

Z

In my opinion, you have an excellent interpreter. He gave you his thoughts. He listened to your counter, and still thought that he was right. He then further listened when you gave him something specifically written by the NFHS. He now made the extra effort to check with someone else. Finally, he was big enough to admit that he was mistaken. Even he learned something today and he is now a better prepared interpreter for it!

The funny thing about the way this discussion has turned is many of you are "assuming" how the conclusion or the ruling was drawn. I did not ask this question in person, I sent it in an email. The reality I have no idea how the interpretation was concluded. I asked a questioned and would believe that they would check with the appropriate people to get an answer. For all any of us know he could have got right on the phone and called Mary Struckoff personally (who worked in the IHSA Office). There are also two individuals in that office that I am aware of that are current sports NF Committee members (Baseball and Football). And the head of the IHSA was on the Basketball Committee as of two or 3 years ago. This is why Mary Struckoff came back to an IHSA event to give a presentation about what the NF was doing. Now I have not read of anyone here being at such an event where Mary Struckoff came to your area and spoke to your group about anything. Now maybe that has happen, but when we debated mechanics here I quoted Struckoff and what the position of the NF on the different mechanics we use. I am sure Mary Struckoff is a phone call or email away.

It sounds like to me that there are people that are so intent on being right, they have lost focus as to why this is a debate. Even if the ruling I was given is totally wrong, I did more than most did here. At least I asked my interpreter (and the head rules interpreter at that) for his position on a rule. I was also planning on asking other rule interpreters that I know and in some cases work for. Some of us actually take action, they do not sit behind a computer screen and ***** they did not here what was right.

I did not ask anyone else because I did not want a "personal opinion." I wanted to hear this from the person that decides who works playoff games, not someone who helps him make those decisions.

Peace

Sounds to me like someone is pretty intent on kissing someone's @$$ in order to get a playoff assignment. :eek:

BTW you didn't get a personal opinion. You got an official NFHS interpretation, courtesy of Bob, which you just refuse to accept.

Are you having trouble admitting that you do not have the answer Nevada? ;)

Bob is not a rules interpreter. Bob and I do not work for the NF and never have. He shared a 6 year old ruling with the board. Bob, me or you are not IHSA Rules Interpreters or Clinicians (in any sport). I only work on a committee with the IHSA and that committee does not deal with rules or mechanic issues in any sport. I do accept that this was once the ruling, I do not accept that is still applies or is even acceptable today. The great thing about this country is we can believe whatever we like.

As to be expected we have people that think what is said here takes precedent over all other rules interpretations or the people that have been hired to give interpretations. The last time I checked any interpretation comes from people. Do not come here on one hand and be critical of the NF because they did not list an interpretation when you clearly were not around to accept the interpretation, then in the next statement get upset because I decided to get clarification.

You cannot have it both ways.

Peace

I do have the answer. Bob provided it to me and to everyone else reading this forum.

He doesn't have to in order to READ and pass on an OFFICIAL NFHS written ruling. He's not interpreting it and neither am I.

Why not?
Do you have an official written statement from the NFHS which says that it is no longer in force? NOPE
Do you have a more current ruling from the NFHS? Nope, you have an email expressing the "opinion" of some guy in Illinois who might give you a playoff game. The way you bow down to this email one would think that it was written on a stone tablet and given to Moses on the mountain top!
I've got news for you, even your big shot Illinois man is fallible.
(BTW, I bet that this guy's email doesn't say to ignore that six year-old ruling or that it is incorrect. It is quite likely that he doesn't even know about its existence. Why don't you send it to him and see what he says specifically about it? When he responds you can post it here for everyone to see. Come on now, don't be scared. :eek: )

No one is claiming anything of the sort.

What is being stated is that an official interpretation issued by real people on the NFHS rules committee, which was posted here by a forum member for everyone to read, has priority over everything else when it comes to NFHS basketball until that same body says otherwise.
Yet you prefer the personal opinion of one man in Illinois typing on his computer.

Then again, perhaps you believe that that interpretation wasn't really written by people, but by aliens! :eek:

Yet you withheld information that would very likely have led to an answer that would contradict your opinion. Very clever of you to bank on the fact that others in your area also unaware of the official FED ruling so that you can get someone to agree with you.

No, you did less. You presented a question without all the known facts with the motive of extracting an answer to your liking. You got an opinion, not a definitive ruling. You knew about the FED ruling and didn't ask him if that was still current...the legit thing to do if you really wanted to find out the real answer.


Yet you did exactly what you didn't want. You got a personal opinion if you knew about details that the other person may have not had available to him. Give him the entire picutre if you're not too afraid to be wrong.

I called one of the Statre Clinicians/Interpreters here in the wild west...he told me that there was a ruling "several years ago" that told us that the player was not dq'ed until the coach was notified - so notify coach, get the kid out, and go from there...he knew about the ruling - maybe not what year it was, but he knew that there was an official interpretation from the NFHS... and I didn't have to prompt him, or try to trick him, or anything...Zebraman, maybe our interpreters are just smarter than the ones in Illinois?!!?

And btw guys...that Ignore button is wonderful!!

I will never understand why people are so invested in what I think about this rule. This conversation is based on a find that most people have not seen. This is why I asked my interpreter and I wanted his take. This is not even a likely situation in the first place.

Many here sound like a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses debating religious expression.

Peace

That's not how Jehovah's Witnesses sound when they debate religious expression around here. In fact, it's very unlikely that you'd ever hear them debating religious expression, so why are you so concerned about what they sound like? I'm going to email my pastor and ask him what Jehovah's Witnesses sound like, but I won't tell him that they're debating religious expression. If you want a copy of the email that I get back from him, let me know.

It explains a lot. ;)

Peace

We're not so concerned about what YOU think about the rule. We just want to prevent the spread of the ignorance that you exude.

I just thought of something....

If the clarifications on 4-23 were not completely reprinted this year, I can interpret "playing court" to mean the area OOB and allow a defender to plant a foot on the live to cut off a dribbler while being able to draw a charge!!! :D

I ran this by the folks at IAABO. (Well, the original question, not the other garbage in this thread.) You don't need to remind me that IAABO is not the authority, but I figured their position on the matter counted as much as any of ours. They believe that the points stand and that this is not a correctable error.

I emailed Kurt and gave him all the information, including the 2000-01 Fed interpretation.

His response, in full:

"Thanks for the note. My interpretation is that the correctable error rule is the rule in question and not 4-14-2."

Can I get an interpretation of what he is saying?:confused:

Is he still going with his original ruling that it's still a correctable error, despite the previous NFHS ruling?