Referee Magazine - November 2006
 

In the NASO Edition of Referee Magazine, page N14, the "Disqualified Player" situation. Is it just me, or is the Ruling incorrect?

Some of us subscribe only to "Chicks And Ammo", so what does the NASO mag say?

Play: A1 commits a personal foul against B2 during B2's unsuccessful try for goal. Following the foul, but prior to free throws being shot, A1 and B2 exchange words and are assessed double technical fouls for unsporting behavior. A1 has foul personal fouls prior to the technical foul being called. How is the play resumed?

Ruling: The technical foul against A1 is a direct technical foul, and this counts toward A1's five personal fouls. A1 is immediately disqualified and is not allowed to shoot the free throws resulting from B2's personal foul. Any team A substitute shall shoot the two feel throws for A1. The double technical fouls are offsetting, and no free throws are shot for the technical fouls. In NFHS, the foul are penalized in the order they occured. A1's substitute will attempt the two free throws for B2's original personal foul with no players on the lane line. An alternating possession throw-in will then be made at the division line opposite table.


So it appears they totally confused A1 and B2. A1 committed the original foul, thus B2 should be shooting free throws. In the situation, it states prior to free throws being shot, which suggests B2 was in the act of shooting when he was fouled.

However, in their last statement, they state they are using the AP at the division line opposite table. Why are they using this? If the technicals canceled each other out (which they did), why wouldn't the POI be the free throws per 4-36-2b? :confused:

It would seem that they did get confused and the lane should not be cleared in this case.

Congratulations. You found the mistake in this month's edition. Keep playing next month to see what RefMag screws up.

Maybe an OC ad that claims great service?

There is a specific version of RM for NASO members? I didn't know that.
Is it different from the normal subscriber's version? It must be since I can't find the play ruling that you mention in my copy. I wonder if the two versions are VASTLY different.

Anyway, you are correct that the play is goofed up and the ruling is incorrect.

I've not subscribed to it recently but when I did it has extra pages in the middle in the NASO version. They were a different color and easily identifiable. The rest of the magazine was the same.

Back when I subscribed, for 2 months of the year they sent us the NASO edition as a trial. The only advantage that NASO has is the insurance. I didn't find the NASO inset useful.

How could you, if it provides rulings such as stated by Tanner, which are two years out of date? :eek:

I usually don't get the NASO edition. As ref18 stated, they do these trial runs and that why I got it.

But yeah, they weren't even close on the ruling... wow!

That might explain it. They may have just been sending you an old example of what the NASO insert looks like. Those could have been leftovers from prior issues a couple of years ago.

Hmm, I don't know. It'd seem like a lot of extra work. Plus the very first page (N1) says "November 2006 Report." Looks like they just really messed it up.

Ok, now I'm reduced to surmising that they prepared this play ruling a while back and just got around to using it now, but failed to check it against recent rule changes.

However the goof occurred, it is very sloppy on the editor's part.

A lot of the articles that appear in the NASO inserts are archived articles from old (sometimes very old) Referee magazines.