New "AP Legal Touch" Rule/Different Interpretation

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Enemy? Maybe he really might be lamented then(not by Dan though). I got nothing but respect for the l'il sh!t when it comes to the rules. He is wise beyond his height.

Me too. And on top of that he-who-shall-not-be-named is mildly interesting while only somewhat annoying.

(btw, and for the record, I don't have to lament the passing of he-who-shall-not-be-named because he's fond of leaving me messages on my cell phone declaring he's going to be in town and demanding to be entertained while he's here... )

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

(btw, and for the record, I don't have to lament the passing of he-who-shall-not-be-named because he's fond of leaving me messages on my cell phone declaring he's going to be in town and demanding to be entertained while he's here )

If it'll make you feel any better, he does say that you're actually quite good at the entertaining part....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

That was my thought, too. If the board exists solely so this guy can assign non-high school games, then it doesn't matter that he's the only "executive" of the board. Does he hold board meetings, give an annual test and all that?

The "joke" seems to be that he was required to join IAABO in the first place. Whose idea was that? There's no IAABO officials in the whole state, except this guy's rec league officials? That makes no sense to me at all.

No. It collects money from the leagues and even pays some of it out.

[BayStateRef]

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....the immediate throw-in following the kick ball is for the violation, not another alternating-possession throw-in.

This is the clarificatin from Peter Webb, who is IAABO's top rules guy, who responded to my email about this disparity. Peter said the intent of the change is to have the same result for the kicking violation as if there were a foul on an alternating possesison throw-in.

This is from Peter's email:

The violation for "kicking" causes the very next/subsequent throw-in to be because of the kicking violation, it is a new throw-in situation. Team A would not lose the APTI. The arrow would not change as the AP throw-in has not ended. The next/subsequent jump ball/held ball ruling would be a APTI for Team A.

Next time I will wait until I hear directly from Peter before posting to this forum.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....the immediate throw-in following the kick ball is for the violation, not another alternating-possession throw-in.

I had a feeling that's the response you'd get. As I said, after re-reading the IAABO ruling, my thought was that there was simply a typo in the last sentence. Thanks for following up. I'm very happy to hear the response.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Next time I will wait until I hear directly from Peter before posting to this forum.

Nah, it's so slow here lately, we need stuff to complain about.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....

Well, as soon as IAABO retracts or amends what they wrote in their sportorial they will be.

Just for any non-officials that might read this.....NFHS is the sole rules-making body for high school level basketball. IAABO is an officials association that tries to interpret those NFHS rules for it's members only, wrongly in some instances as you can see.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Just for any non-officials that might read this.....NFHS is the sole rules-making body for high school level basketball.

NFHS is the only rules-making body that publishes a complete rulebook, as far as I know. But many states have their own committees that make the rules for those states. Any state that requires mouthguards, or plays 18-minute halves, or utilizes a shot-clock has its own rules-making body. NFHS isn't the only body that can make rules for HS.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

NFHS is the only rules-making body that publishes a complete rulebook, as far as I know. But many states have their own committees that make the rules for those states. Any state that requires mouthguards, or plays 18-minute halves, or utilizes a shot-clock has its own rules-making body. NFHS isn't the only body that can make rules for HS.

Yup, but the states that do this without NFHS approval also risk losing representation to the applicable NFHS rules committee.

I believe Mass. or some other New England state uses a different rulebook entirely for high school beisbol.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It turns out that IAABO and the NFHS are saying the same thing....the immediate throw-in following the kick ball is for the violation, not another alternating-possession throw-in.

This is the clarificatin from Peter Webb, who is IAABO's top rules guy, who responded to my email about this disparity. Peter said the intent of the change is to have the same result for the kicking violation as if there were a foul on an alternating possesison throw-in.


This is from Peter's email:

The violation for "kicking" causes the very next/subsequent throw-in to be because of the kicking violation, it is a new throw-in situation. Team A would not lose the APTI. The arrow would not change as the AP throw-in has not ended. The next/subsequent jump ball/held ball ruling would be a APTI for Team A.

Next time I will wait until I hear directly from Peter before posting to this forum.

Don't sweat it. I'm just glad that he got it right!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, but the states that do this without NFHS approval also risk losing representation to the applicable NFHS rules committee.

I believe Mass. or some other New England state uses a different rulebook entirely for high school beisbol.

Or any state that requires each team to have a coach on the sideline for a game to continue.

[Scrapper1]

Ok, back to the original topic of when the throw-in ends. In the Sportorials that BayStateRef mentioned, the new HS rule changes are printed, as are the NCAA changes. If Sportorials is accurate, the NCAA is going to the OLD high school rule. Here's the change, according to the newsletter:

NCAA 4-65-5: "A throw-in shall end when a passed ball is touched inbounds or out-of-bounds by another player on the playing court, before going out-of-bounds."

This replaces the old 4-65-5, which said "A throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an inbounds player. The throw-in may be controlled or touched inbounds by the thrower-in after the ball touches or is legally touched by a player inbounds."

The old rule was written that way to preserve the team control foul during the throw-in. Anybody else hear anything about this change? Anybody think we'll have the old HS problem with the AP situation?

[Scrapper1]

Other changes for NCAA include, men will use the women's alignment for free throws (bottom space empty), hair control devices (like pre-wrap) have to be the same color as the jersey -- or white, black or beige), and next season ('08-'09) the 3-point line will be moved back one foot.

And the calling official goes opposite the table.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Other changes for NCAA include, men will use the women's alignment for free throws (bottom space empty), hair control devices (like pre-wrap) have to be the same color as the jersey -- or white, black or beige), and next season ('08-'09) the 3-point line will be moved back one foot.

And the calling official goes opposite the table.

The latter two changes (3-point line; go opposite) are NCAAM only. Someone who posted here for a short while included a sig to the effect that "any NCCA rulings in this post are for NCAAM only." You might consider that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Someone who posted here for a short while included a sig to the effect that "any NCCA rulings in this post are for NCAAM only." You might consider that.

I vaguely remember that person. Can't remember his name though.