4-15-4d change
 

Here is another rule change that make it look almost like some of those rule guys think we occasionally bring up a good question.

Changed that a dribble ends when loss of control by the dribbler is caused by the opponent touching, or being touched by, the ball, rather than an intentional batting of the ball.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=28283


Is it possible that this means that before the change I was right and JR was wrong? Either way, I like the change.

Of course you were right. You agreed with me in that thread. :)

I must confess. The NFHS has been calling me to confirm their new case plays and rule changes before they send them to publisher. :D

We have known about that one since the NFHS issued the press release of the new changes, and, yes, it likely was due to our discussion.

Sounds like a plan to me.

You sure that is a change and not a clarification for the folks that was calling the play incorrectly?

It is listed under rule changes:

Changed that a dribble ends when loss of control by the dribbler is caused by the opponent touching, or being touched by, the ball, rather than an intentional batting of the ball.

Mick,
My take was that the NFHS made an intelligent decision when learning that the rule as written did not match the accepted way that the game was being called. They simply changed the rule to match what people were doing on the court. Now they can still instruct us to call the game by the rules as written. :)

Contrary to what JAR wrote in his original post, case book play 4.15.4SitD has <b>not</b> changed. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed either.:)

That would be as I suspected.

Actually what changed is rule book 4-15-4d. Nobody mentioned the case book.

You're right. Rule 9-5-3 hasn't changed though.

I'm trying to keep up with all of this: are there any other rules that haven't changed? :rolleyes:

But rule 9-5-3 had nothing to do with the original thread and has nothing to do with this change.

Whatinthehell are you talking about? :confused: You need to go back and read the thread; specifically read my first post in that thread. Mick was arguing the same rule--9-5-3. We both were arguing the intent of 9-5-3, which rule <b>hasn't</b> changed.

My play was A1 dribbling the ball and the dribble striking B1's foot.


You said the dribble ended when it struck B1's foot, which apparently the rule book guys disagreed with or the change would not have been necessary.

The rule quoted was 9-5-3 which deals with either a pass or a fumble, neither of which was mentioned in the play in this thread.

You said the ball hitting B1 was considered a fumble, which remains to date as the most outrageous, most wrongest thing I have ever seen you post.

But there's always tomorrow......:D