Line up for new subs

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Kelvin, I do not want to burst your bubble about latest rules books versus old rules books, BUT, your attitude just makes my case easier.

quote: "If it's not in the rule book or casebook, then it just isn't so, unless you use the elastic powers of the referee. Interpretations change. Rule Books change. No one would expect anyone to remember what was in the 1998-1999 Rule Book."

Kelvin, R2-S3(Elastic Clause), just does not apply in your argument. The NFHS publish a Rules Book, Case Book, Simplified & Illustrated Rules, Officials Manual, and Handbook every year. The purpose to publish annually is to highlight any new changes in the rules from last year. If a rule has not been changed then any Case Book Plays that are applicable to that particular rule are still in effect whether they are or are not in the current Case Book. It just stands to reason that these Plays would still be applicable, just because the Plays are not in the current Case Book does not make them null and void. And if you were officiating during the 1998-99 season I do expect you to remember what was in that year's Rules Book.

quote: "I don't keep old rule books around and a lot of officials don't. I don't keep my books around for that very purpose. I don't want to be confused from the previous year to the next. I would suggest that if the committee removes something from the rules then it was not necessary or the committee did not want it there for the future. I for one will not go back and try to second guess the rules committee."

If you getting confused from one year to the next then I suggest that you do more studying of the Rules Book and Case Book. You may not want to keep a lot of old Rules Books (and neither does my wife, but that is another story), old Rules Books are a valuable resource in studying the rules.

quote: "Newer officials must only rely on the books published. I have been an official long enough to see rules change quite a bit, and if we rely on stuff from the past we maybe placing ourselves in jeopardy of not staying with current rules."

Yes, newer officials do not have the advantage of old Rules Books, and that is where rules intepreters and instructional chairmen must do their jobs when conducting rules/mechanics meetings and officiating classes. For one to understand the current rules, one must understand how these current rules came to be. I guess you could say that if we forget history we are doomed to repeat it.

quote: "When an organization publishes new rules, they generally supercede the old ones. The only Rules that are official are the ones in the current book. If the NF thinks that an intrerpretation is important enough it will be in the case book for new officials. This is not the legal profession where common law precedent plays a key role in the interpretation of new rules. Even in law when new rules are published or Congress passes new legislation, much of the precedent is overturned."

To say that when "an organization publishes new rules, they generally supercede the old ones" is just not true. As I said earlier, rules get published on an regular basis to highlight the new parts, the parts that have not been changed do not change. Sports rules are just like laws. Case law sets precedent, and case book plays also set precedent. If sports officials throw out all applicable case book plays just because they are not in the current case book, then why have case books at all.

quote: "I will rely on the current book and casebooks, and here is why...You are in a rivalry game, hotly contested, and it's close. A is down by one point and only has four team fouls, and it out of timeouts. The coach needs time to set up his press so he tells one of his players to foul, stopping the clock, and sends three subs in and in doing so requests a lineup. This stops the game, matches up players, allows them to immediately get on their man in the name of a line-up, and completely set up the press. A steals the ball and goes up one. Coach B complains that you let them line up, delaying the game and setting up the press. He knows the rules and tells you it's not in the rules! And then you reply it was in the 1997-1998 rule book but has since been taken out but that you know it is still official (although it does not appear in any current NF publication). The coach complains to the State or your own association about allowing something not permitted by rule. Your only defense, if it's not specifically prohibited then it must be allowed, because I would not want to tell someone well it was in an old book, and I don't think the committee meant to change it."

First, (with tongue, somewhat, in cheek) I seriously doubt that the Coach B knows the rules. And just because you do not have the Rules Book or Case Book with the specific play in question, as I have said before, the intepretation still is in effect. Let him complain to the State Association (SA) or your local Association (LA) all he wants. I can assure that at that at the LA there will be at least one old geezer (like me) that will tell you that there is Rules Book or Case Book justification for you call. The SA will tell you the same. If the coach wants proof, then you, your LA rules interpreter or SA should have no problem getting verification from the NFHS. Sometimes the NFHS may take sometime to locate the appropriate Plays, but the NFHS will make it possible for you to defend your position.

There is a wealth of human experience with regard to rules interpretations and officiating both at the local, state, and national levels, including the Rules Committee itself.

I suggest that you become more involved with rules interpretations and officiating instruction at the local level. The profession needs more people to become involved at the local level so that rules information is relayed to the rank and file. One way to become involved is to become a member of IAABO the largest basketball official association in the United States and Canada. IAABO is very involved in the education of basketball officials and has had three of its member serve on the NFHS Rules Committee over the last ten or twelve years.

[BktBallRef]

Mark, I can understand the NF taking things out of the Case Book. If the rule still exists, then taking it out of the Case Book should not change the enforcement of the rule.

But in this case, the NF has removed part of the Rule Book. That is a totally different situation. When something no longer appears in the Rule Book, we can't assume that it's still a rule or still permissable. That's just nuts. At the very least, an editorial note to address this deletion should have been written.

BTW, the NF does not print a Handbook and an Officials Manual every year. These two books alternate years. This year's Officials Manual is good for 2001-2003 and is print in odd numbered years. Last year's Handbook is good for 2000-2002 and is printed in even numbered years.

[Kelvin green]

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I resent you telling me I need to study the rules because I do. I just dont think that we need to rely on the past rules. They may only confuse officials. I understand the history behind most of the rules, but I also think that a new official, a coach, or an experienced official needs to have something definitive to rely on. They dont need to rely on all the past interpretations that were ever issued because they dont have them. certainly there are old guys around who can help with instruction but no one remembers or uses the old interps. They dnt need to since things have changed. I dont need to study the old rules to figure out the way a current game has to be called.

There may be old geezers around but how many times have we seen on this board an old geezer make a mistake because they forgot what the new rule was, that it was changed many years ago.

The current rules are the current rules, nothing more, nothing less.

The point is that there is no rule in the book that justifies a line-up! It was taken out of the rule book so how can you say any interpretation still allows it???

it just doesnot. It is not implied, it is not stated. If you had two newer officialson the floor and a coach says we used to do it, so it must be a paractice or procedure , would sure to make the new officials just run right out and do it.

So like I said if you want to take the philosophy that if it's not prohibited then it must be allowed is OK! And that would be the most acceptable stance regarding a line-up !!!Remember when there was the rule about interlocking arms becoming a T. It wasnt prohibited until a creative coach figured it out and then it was banned.

If you want to approach this under that philosophy I can buy it...but dont tell basketball officials that its a rule when its not because it has not been specifically allowed. If it was specifically allowed, it would be listed in the book.

I worked for a govt agency way too long and heard many employees say, "Well we used to interpret the rules that way" when the rules had been republished and parts left out and they did not stay up on the changes. Believe me when a rule gets enough questions asked about it then the interp goes in the book, If they still get too many questions then it is rewritten in the book. That's why in NF terms we have editorial changes. etc

So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

This is what I posted in an earlier post on this subject and it still stands:

Questions and answers within the Rules Book are nothing more than Case Book Plays/Rules Interpretaions that are placed within the Rules. Case Book Plays are routinely removed from the Case Book to make room for others, but this does not mean the Case Book Play is no longer in effect. The only way for a Case Book Play to become null and void is for the Rule to which it applies, to be changed subsequent to it being removed from the Case Book. The same goes for a Q/A that is removed from the Rules Book.

If you read the NFHS/NCAA Rules Books you will see EXCEPTIONS and NOTES sprinkled through the Rules Books. In past years there were also QUESTIONS/ANSWERS in various places in these books. These Q/A's have been romoved from the Rules Books, but that does not mean their rulings are null void. It is a shame that they were removed because they were an essentional part of the rules interpretation process.

To sum things up for the original posting: Yes, the captain of either team can request a jump ball line up when either team substitutes three or more players at one time. This jump ball line up is for the purpose of locating opponents.