NFHS Rules examiner
 

Waiting to hear back from NFHS on this question. I emailed tem along with IAABO answer. I will post as soon as I receive.

when you guys say tony is that me or someoneelse, i am confused?
what is iaabo anyway?

The often-referenced Tony is BktBallRef; who only has 1493 posts to date.... Geee, a mere 1441 more posts and you will be as proliferic as BktBallRef.:D

Iaabo is the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials.... Well, check it out for yourself: http://www.iaabo.org/

IAABO stands for "I Am A Blind Official." The other acronym in common use is the international basketball entity known as "FEEBLE".

NFHS agrees with IAABO
 

The below person who responded to my email has agreed with the IAABO answer. I have now forwarded it to Ga. To see if we have a consensus.

All interpretations for high school basketball should be run through the Georgia state association.Â* However, I do agree with the interpretation below (#4), but you may want to contact the basketball liaison at the Georgia office for their official interpretation.

Mary Struckhoff
Assistant Director - Basketball Editor/National Interpreter
National High School Federation

NFHS agrees with IAABO
 

The below person who responded to my email has agreed with the IAABO answer. I have now forwarded it to Ga. To see if we have a consensus.

All interpretations for high school basketball should be run through the Georgia state association. However, I do agree with the interpretation below (#4), but you may want to contact the basketball liaison at the Georgia office for their official interpretation.

Mary Struckhoff
Assistant Director - Basketball Editor/National Interpreter
National High School Federation

Posting it twice doesn't make it anymore correct or incorrect. :p

As you can see from Mary's email, she welcomes an interpretation for the state association in these situations. Doesn't sound like a consensus to me. It's simply not covered. Maybe we'll see a case play next year.

You are correct, but I will have the State answer next week.
 

I agree that it should be covered in the case or rules exactly. But there it plenty enough verbage for me to feel comfortable with a violation.

Let me see if I got this straight now:
1)In North Carolina,the official Fed ruling is to issue B with a "delay-of-game"warning,and then give B their throw-in with no violation called.
2)IAABO and Mary Struckhoff(Fed national interpreter) say that it is a throw-in violation by B,followed by a "delay-of-game"warning to B-unless Georgia thinks it's different.
3)Mark T. DeNucci Sr. of IAABO fame says that it is a throw-in violation with no delay-of-game warning ever.
4)We're waiting to hear from Georgia.
The sad part is that Crew ended up right-quote-"your in rome,we are the romans,do as we do"-unquote.

Actually, I think #1 comes from Dick Knox - the Chair of the NFHS basketball rules committee.

From the original positng:

A1 scores a basket, as the ball goes through the net B1 grabs the ball and immediately passes it up court to a fastbreaking teammate. The problem is B1 has never stepped out of bounds. Both feet remained inbounds.....

The answers I have gotten are these:

1.) It is nothing, you blow your whistle and reset the throw in with B1 out of bounds. ( This seems strange since it could occur more than once and it seems there would be a procedure to handle this.)

2.) You immediately start your 5 second count since the ball is at the disposal of B1. Then you could have a 5 second count if they do not bring the ball back and throw it in correctly. ( The problem I see with this is alot can happen in that 5 second count, they could actually score quickly or a foul could be committed, it could really make the game messy.)

3.) You blow your whistle and reset the throw in for B and issue B a delay of game warning for boundary violation. ( Not sure this warning covers this.)

4.) It is a throw in violation. The ball was at B1's disposal, to make a legal throw in the player must be out of bounds, since B1 attempted a throw in it without going out of bounds it is a violation. ( The problem I am being told on this is that there is no rule or case that covers this directly and since B1 never stepped out of bounds the throw in did not begin, there for it cannot be a throw in violation.


Mary Struckhoff has said that (4) is the correct interpretation and Dick Knox has said that (3) is the correct interpretation.

Mary has said that all rules interpretation should go thru the official's state association. I have no problem with that but the interpretation must be an NFHS approved interpretation. We cannot have one state association interpretating a play one way and another state association interpretating a play another way.

IAABO uses NFHS and NCAA interpretations only.

I believe Mary's interpretation of the posted play is correct and Dick's interpretation is incorrect.

Lets look at the play again using NFHS Rules references.

R6-S1-A2b: The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower-in. After a goal (field goal or free-throw) is scored, the ball becomes live when the thrower-in steps out of bounds with the ball in his possession. The ball also becomes live in this situation when the ball sits on the floor and no one from the team eligible to make the throw-in makes any attempt to pick up the ball and make a throw-in or when a player from the team eligible to make the throw-in holds the ball inbounds and makes no attempt to start the throw-in; in these two cases the administering official can start a five second count when the throwing team fails to start the throw-in. In the second case if the player in possession of the ball throws the ball to a teammate as described in the posted play, then the team eligible to make the throw-in has committed a throw-in violation.

Why is this a throw-in violation? R7-S6-A3 and R9-S2-A11 say so. These two rules references say the samething. They refer to the thrower being inbounds before releasing the ball on a pass.

The fact that the thrower throw the ball in a throw-in manner (it is the best description I can come up with) is an indication of the players intent to make a throw-in. This violates R7-S6-A3 and R9-S2-A11. At no time does the delay of game warning can be applied to this play. It is just a simple throw-in violation by the team eligible to make the throw-in. At no time can a delay of game warning ever be made. This situation is not one of the three delay of game situations that require a warning. There is no rule support for a delay of game warning. If a team is constantly making this kind of throw-in violation, just keep calling the violation. If the team is careless enough to continously not pay attention to where the boundary line is it deserves to be called for the violation. Eventually the team will get its act together or the coach will get players in the game that will do it correctly. This is not a situation the calls for a technical foul for continously commiting the same violation. It is just poor play by the team involved.

I have a second more important concern, and that is the apparent belief by some people that state associations are the final authority to make interpretations. As I have stated above, the NFHS is the final authority on rules interpretations. There can be only one interpretations for everybody using NFHS rules, and IAABO uses only NFHS and NCAA interpretations in its interpretations.

I think Mary made it very clear that an official should follow his/her state's interpretation.

In this case, there is no NFHS interpretation, at least not until it's published in a rule or case book, on the NFHS website, or in a memo to each state association. An email to an official that one person would agree with an interpretation is not an NFHS ointerpretation, no matter who she is. Therefore, I believe states are in a position to make interpretations on such issues. If not, then Mary would not have suggested that Self contact the GHSA.

And I have news for you, different states do have different interpretaions of some situations. If you think we're all playing by the same rules in every case, you're mistaken.

Mary Struckhoff, as Rules Editor, she is NFHS. There cannot be 50 different interpretations to a play. There is only one intepretation to a play and it is the NFHS interpretation.

Mark,if you go back and re-read the posts:
1)the official IAABO response,as agreed to by Mary Struckhoff,says that it is a violation,and,-quote"it would be considered good officiating technique for the official after this occured to issue a warning that if a team persists in such tactics a technical foul would be assessed"-unquote.This,supposedly,is the one interpretation that you are talking about above that is definitive.
2)Mark T. DeNucci Sr.,who is a member of the IAABO Visual and Education Committee,says it is a violation,BUT-quote"this is not a delay of game warning situation,nor is it ever a technical foul for delay of game"-unquote-ALSO-quote"so forget this delay of game warning manure"-unquote.
Now,without even getting into why Dick Knox and Mary Struckhoff of the Fed rules committee disagree,could you tell me how you can disagree with your own association-IAABO?Also,how can you disagree with the Fed definitive response by Mary Struckhoff?Can you really blame TH for getting frustrated with you?You've inserted your own interpretation into this, and no one in an official capacity(Fed or IAABO) has agreed with it.Re-read Crew's Rome quote-he gave you good advice.

Big Tony(not Todd or l'il tony),you're definitely not dogmatic or condescending.Read once though that someone thought you were pompous(biiig grin).Don't stop talking to Mr. T. Someone on this board has to tell him when he's wrong.