A Play I can not find in rules or case... Actually happened.

[Self]

The Ga. rule interpreter for IAABO Dean Erickson also agrees it is a violation. Sectretary of IAABO Ray McClure of RAYTHEREF.com and proclaimed "rules expert", Ray does rules clinics throughout the Southeast. He also agrees with it being violation. He did say that there is nothing, as we know, that discusses this directly. That at first thought he agreed with 5 second violation, but since A1 has No intent on going out of bounds an immediate violation can be called since A1 is attempting an illegal throw-in. Illegal because the basic fundimental rule of the thwow-in is being out of bounds.I did not show them the answers given by other parties, so to not sway their decision. They quoted the same rules as stated above.

Also I asked them regarding the technical and the only reasoning is it could be deemed making an atrocity of he game, deemed "no attempt to follow the guidelines of the rules".

I heard back from Referee Magazine, and was told they would try and put this in a future issue. I have emailed a couple of other people with NFHS to see there response and hope to hear back this week. I will let yall know.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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).

No doubt I probably was!

Don't stop talking to Mr. T. Someone on this board has to tell him when he's wrong.

Problem is, he's never wrong, or so he thnks. I never recall him once admitting he was wrong. None of us are perfect.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

1) Writing in the third person is the correct way to write on a subject. Talk to any high school English teacher.

2) The orginally posted play is such a simple play that I cannot believe that it has generated so many posts. The rules support a throw-in violation.

3) I repeat myself for the umpteenth time. This play has nothing to do with any of the three delay of game warnings listed in the NFHS Rules Book. This play is just careless play by A1, nothing complicated. Why would an official want to complicate it with an official delay of game warning when it is not? Why would an official even think of charging a technical foul for this violation and who would be charged with the technical foul? If you cannot explain the call do not make the call.

4) It is the opinion of this writer and many other more learned rules interpreters with whom I have talked, that only the NFHS can make official rules interpretations and that while an official can get a preliminary ruling from his state association, the NFHS is the final authority. We cannot have a different ruling for a play from each and every state association. I am registered by both the OhioHSAA and the MichiganHSAA. Can you imagine the chaos if Ohio said that the posted play was nothing more than a throw-in violaiton and Michigan said it is a reset, plus at delay of game warning, and then two border schools play each other (and they do, because I have such a game tomorrow).

[Self]

Mark, I agree with one rule one interpretation. The below post and quote that I posted earlier was disapointing Mary felt she needed to add contacting the Ga. office. I have done so along with others at NFHS. When I hear this week from them I will post their comments. I agree it is a violation and supported by many diferent rules. Maybe it will be added to the case book next year.

"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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
1) Writing in the third person is the correct way to write on a subject. Talk to any high school English teacher.

2) The orginally posted play is such a simple play that I cannot believe that it has generated so many posts. The rules support a throw-in violation.

3) I repeat myself for the umpteenth time. This play has nothing to do with any of the three delay of game warnings listed in the NFHS Rules Book. This play is just careless play by A1, nothing complicated. Why would an official want to complicate it with an official delay of game warning when it is not? Why would an official even think of charging a technical foul for this violation and who would be charged with the technical foul? If you cannot explain the call do not make the call.

4) It is the opinion of this writer and many other more learned rules interpreters with whom I have talked, that only the NFHS can make official rules interpretations and that while an official can get a preliminary ruling from his state association, the NFHS is the final authority. We cannot have a different ruling for a play from each and every state association. I am registered by both the OhioHSAA and the MichiganHSAA. Can you imagine the chaos if Ohio said that the posted play was nothing more than a throw-in violaiton and Michigan said it is a reset, plus at delay of game warning, and then two border schools play each other (and they do, because I have such a game tomorrow).

Mark,I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.Why does the the official Fed interpretation and your IAABO cohorts interpretation differ from your interpretation?They both say you can call a delay-of game warning!If NFHS is the final authority,why do you keep insisting that you can't call a delay of game warning?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

You cannot issue a delay of game warning because:

1) The ball becoming live was not delayed.

2) The posted play is not has not a single thing to do with three delay of game warning situations listed in the NFHS Rules. And these warnings are found in NFHS R4-S46-A1, A2, and A3.

S46: A warning to a team for delay is an administrative
procedure by an official which is recorded in the score-
book by the scorer and reported to the coach:

A1: For throw-in plane violations as in R9-S2-A11.

A2: For huddle by either team and contact with the free
thrower, as in R10-S1-A5c.

A3: For interfering with the ball following a goal as
in R10-S1-A5d.

R9-S2-A11: A player shall not violate the following pro-
visions of the throw-in. Furthermore: The opponents(s)
of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person
through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line
plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in
pass.

NOTE: The thrower may penetrat the plane provided
he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the
ball is released on the throw-in pass. The oppoenent
in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.
See penalty.

This is why you do not issue a delay of game warning for the throw-in violation by the team making the throw-in. I have to believe, that if Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox are saying that a delay of game warning as part of the posted play, they did not understand the play. The delay cannot be issued for the posted play because it just is not covered by R4-S46.

As I have stated previously, do NOT issue a delay of game warning under R4-S46, the rule does not support such action.

[Self]

We now have:

1.)The Head Rules Examiner for IAABO Roger MacTavish.
2.)Assistant Directer/NFHS Interpreter Mary Shruckhoff.
3.)Executive Committe/Ga. IAABO rules interpreter Dean Ericson.
4.) IAABO Secretary/ SE rules clinician Ray McClure.
5.) Still waiting from numerous others.

All agreeing could it not be that they are saying that a game cannot continue as such and per rule 3 article 2 we issue a warning after such violation that a technical will follow if the team persists making this violation, that it is to making an atrocity of the game by ignoring the rules?

I agree it is a violation, but I also could see this is making a mockery/atrocity of the game and you could use this rule if it continued. What do you think?

[Oz Referee]

C'mon people (especially Mark), do the phrases: advantage/disadvatnage, spirit of the rules, common sense, etc mean anything to you?

If the team does this once (and depending on the level of the game) blow the whistle as soon as it happens, bring play back for the throw in - if it is young kids, explain in a loud voice that they have to be behind the line for a throw in.

The second time make it a violation, and reward the ball to the other team. Subsequent occasions would warrant a technical.

At higher levels use a bit of judgement - was it an honest mistake? If so bring play back.

Where they trying to get an advantage, and as such did it intentionally - T them straight away!


Not all situations are clear cut, black and white - as referees we have to use our judgement, and not just rely on being able to quote the axact wording of every rule.

Perhaps some referees need to be less anally retentive, and more realistic and maintain their understanding of what sport is about - have a good time.

[paulis]

I'm with you Oz! Our job is to enforce the rules and/or the spirit of the rules. If this or any other play occurs which is not expressly covered, use some common sense, make a call and let's go.

[Self]

But HS basketball especially Varsity level all should be call consistantly. Actually all levels from MS - HS should be called the same as far as the rules. You have alot on the line at these games and while I can appreciate the love of the game and it is for the kids. The lasr thing I want is to be calling with someone who has a great feel for the game and says just use common sense. All the rules are not just common sense and if we don't all follow the same rules then we make ourselves less professional. That is not to say a feel for the game or common sense is not an important part of the game. Just you can't eliminate the rules. When we become incosistent with each other, we are the ones hurting the game.

I agree all situation cannot be spelled out exactly in the books, but enough language is provided for you to interpret most all situations. If not then new cases need to be added. This may be one of them.

[paulis]

Self, I agree with you to a point but this situation clearly involves an area where there is going to be inconsistency, simply by the fact that it does not fit neatly into our rules. A definitive answer does not seem apparent and if such a situation arises on the court, at any level, give me a partner who can exercise common sense and understands the spirit and intent of the rules as opposed to a strict interpreter. I have a feeling that I would feel much more comfortable on the court with someone like Oz, whose philosophy seems to mirror mine, than with someone who might get caught up in overanalyzization. Just my humble thoughts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
You cannot issue a delay of game warning because:

1) The ball becoming live was not delayed.

2) The posted play is not has not a single thing to do with three delay of game warning situations listed in the NFHS Rules. And these warnings are found in NFHS R4-S46-A1, A2, and A3.

S46: A warning to a team for delay is an administrative
procedure by an official which is recorded in the score-
book by the scorer and reported to the coach:

A1: For throw-in plane violations as in R9-S2-A11.

A2: For huddle by either team and contact with the free
thrower, as in R10-S1-A5c.

A3: For interfering with the ball following a goal as
in R10-S1-A5d.

R9-S2-A11: A player shall not violate the following pro-
visions of the throw-in. Furthermore: The opponents(s)
of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person
through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line
plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in
pass.

NOTE: The thrower may penetrat the plane provided
he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the
ball is released on the throw-in pass. The oppoenent
in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.
See penalty.

This is why you do not issue a delay of game warning for the throw-in violation by the team making the throw-in. I have to believe, that if Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox are saying that a delay of game warning as part of the posted play, they did not understand the play. The delay cannot be issued for the posted play because it just is not covered by R4-S46.

As I have stated previously, do NOT issue a delay of game warning under R4-S46, the rule does not support such action.

OK,Mark,I finally got a definitive answer from you.Mary Struckhoff,Dick Knox,NCHSSA and supposedly 3 members of the IAABO executive committee have given out an incorrect interpretation of this sitch.Mark T. DeNucci Jr. has the correct interpretation.Just wanted you to come right out and say it.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by paulis
Self, I agree with you to a point but this situation clearly involves an area where there is going to be inconsistency, simply by the fact that it does not fit neatly into our rules. A definitive answer does not seem apparent and if such a situation arises on the court, at any level, give me a partner who can exercise common sense and understands the spirit and intent of the rules as opposed to a strict interpreter. I have a feeling that I would feel much more comfortable on the court with someone like Oz, whose philosophy seems to mirror mine, than with someone who might get caught up in overanalyzization. Just my humble thoughts.

Humble thoughts but a good post, nonetheless. There is no rule that is directly on point, which I've also previously stated. When there isn't, we either have to have an interpretation from the people who make decisions in our area or use our common sense.

[Oz Referee]

Originally posted by Self
But HS basketball especially Varsity level all should be call consistantly. Actually all levels from MS - HS should be called the same as far as the rules. You have alot on the line at these games and while I can appreciate the love of the game and it is for the kids. The lasr thing I want is to be calling with someone who has a great feel for the game and says just use common sense. All the rules are not just common sense and if we don't all follow the same rules then we make ourselves less professional. That is not to say a feel for the game or common sense is not an important part of the game. Just you can't eliminate the rules. When we become incosistent with each other, we are the ones hurting the game.

I agree all situation cannot be spelled out exactly in the books, but enough language is provided for you to interpret most all situations. If not then new cases need to be added. This may be one of them.

I agree that games need to be called consistently, and I would hope that most referees have a consistent idea of "common sense". I also agree that not all the rules are common sense - but this is a situation which is not specifically addressed by the rules.

I was not arguing that a referee should have less knowledge about the rules, and more "feel" for the game. Simply that, as far as I am concerned, and "good" referee should have an adequate understanding of the game to be able to make a fair judgement for any situation that is not specifically covered. This is where common sense becomes involved.

Finally, thanks Paulis - I would much prefer to sare a court with you, then say Mark snr.

[eroe39]

Throw-in violation.