FED 2007-2008 Interps Are Out
 

Of special interest (and NOT what I would have ruled):

SITUATION 9: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt (Team B's backcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt and catches the ball in the air. B2 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection (legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in Team B's frontcourt and then steps in Team B's backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exceptions of a throw-in and a defensive player, and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

I also think Situation 12 is confusing (although it does match the case play change this year)

It's not what I would've liked, either. But it matches the rationale for the case book change that we discussed in the "Sorry, Nevada" thread (http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=38126). I haven't seen situation 12 yet, but I'll go look at all of them today. Thanks for the update.

Wow, #12 is awful. No T if the confusion is the result of subbing, but T if the confusion is after a time-out. I don't like that at all.

This one deserves its own (sure to be locked) thread!

Ok, I'm sorry to keep posting, but as I read these, I'm just stunned by some of them.

Didn't we just change the rule so that if the first touch was a violation, we wouldn't switch the arrow?!?!?!

Also, wasn't there some discussion of the throw-in spot following this violation? Didn't the penalty change so that the throw-in returned to the original spot?

I see that Situation # 7 says that it's also a violation if B2 lands directly in the back court after intercepting the tipped throw-in.

Gee, in #9, I guess that B2 <b>isn't</b> a <b>defensive</b> player then.

Who woulda thunk it?

Why is the arrow reversed in Situation #3 if B violated?
And yes, the throw-in is from the original spot, not the spot nearest the violation.

:confused:

double :confused:

6.4.5.A reads, " A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure."

6-4-4
The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

4-42-5
A throw-in ends when the throw-in pass is "legally" touched by another player.

I'm also :confused:.

In Situation 3 they are saying the touch is a "legal" touch, thus ending the throw-in, then the violation occurs because the players are standing OOB. That would explain why the throw-in is from the spot closest to the violation. But yet a kicked ball violation is not a "legal" touch and doesn't end the throw-in.

Just flip the arrow when you hand the ball to the thrower; this all goes away. :D

Which means the clock should start (and "immedaitely" stop)

And the clock doesn't start.

And the catch of a jump ball is not a legal touch (which is why B gets the ball but A gets the arrow).

For the record, I "agree" with the ruling in Situation 3, but I recognize the (apparent) contradictions.

I don't think so. 9-2 PENALTY (Section 2) says "Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot." There's no distinction between a violation at the throw-in spot or at a different out of bounds spot.

That is for touches that are always illegal (kick) no matter where/when they occur...but not touches that would be legal dependant on player location.

There was. An interpretation was published that said it was to be at the original throwin spot. However, there was also non-insignificant rules and case support for the throwin spot to be the spot of the OOB violation. Looks like they may have corrected the somewhat recent interpretation that had the effect of make this a throwin violation instead of a OOB violation. Logicially, and consistent with all other violation penalties, the throwin spot should be at the point of the actual violation.

But that's what Sit. 3 is saying - the new throw-in spot is closest to where A2 or B2 were OOB. Iow, the violation is now an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation.

9-2 covers throwin violations. If it is not a throwin violation, then 9-2 doesn't apply. A point that was debated when the previous interp. came out was that a throwin that is touched while OOB is not a throwin violation but an OOB violation. The previous interp. treated it as a throwin violation and the current interp. doesn't. The NFHS has corrected themselves to match what the interpreation was for decades (except for the last several months)

I love this stuff. First of all, it wasn't an interp; it was actually the rule. In the '04-'05 book, 9-2-10 (under throw-in violations) says that no player shall be out of bounds when touched by the throw-in pass. That made it a throw-in violation, not an out of bounds violation.

Second of all, however, that article was deleted from this year's book (in an apparently unannounced change), so now the rule is once again what it always was supposed to be. I didn't realize that the rule changed back last year. Thanks for making me go and look it up.

Actually, that article wasn't deleted. It was simply moved verbatim to Section 3 "Out of Bounds".

And FWIW, I still think that the arrow should not change in this situation. The ball was not touched legally. It doesn't matter if it would have been legal in some other circumstance. (At least, it shouldn't matter.)

Where can I read that?

Where can I read that?

Not being a smartass, I've just never seen any of this.

SITUATION 12: Following a (a) charged time-out; or (b) a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return, and he/she sprints onto the court and catches up with play. RULING: In (a), the officials shall stop play and assess a team technical foul for not having all players return to the court at approximately the same time after a time-out. The technical foul counts toward the team-foul count. In (b), the officials may permit play to continue without penalty. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court. COMMENT: Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage, teams are expected to return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out. The officials should have also followed the prescribed mechanics and counted the number of players on the court, ensuring each team has the legal number of players. (10-1-9; 10-3-3)

I'm so confused. I thought you couldn't enter the court unless you were properly beckoned.

Also, suppose play is at Team A's defensive end....suddenly Team A gets the ball ...THEN the coach calls to A5 to get in the game (as in situation B). Breakaway layup time..

I recall a very long and heated thread where only BBref and I agreed that team A catching a ball deflected into their back court but not yet landing in the back court was a violation on team A...seems situation 10 confirms us being correct.;)

IMHO we should start separate threads for the different Sit. #'s so we don't get too convoluted on this thread. Anyone disagree? Tough.

I feel so suppressed.

Okay, I'm taking a big risk here. It's so hard to just launch off into the male banter thing, but I"m gonna try it anyway...

Just shut up:D

Oh. That helps. :)

I feel the same way as you Bob. I would have considered B2 to be a defensive player, but clearly the NFHS does not.

EDIT: Actually, after reading the play closely, I realized that it doesn't matter. B2 is jumping from his backcourt, not his frontcourt so he isn't covered by the text of 9-9-3, which specifies that the player "may legally jump from his/her frontcourt..."
So really this interp tells us nothing new. I would have always called this a backcourt violation.

I agree with most of this. I agree that if all five players don't return at approximately the same time following a time-out or intermission that it is a technical foul. There is a specific rule that says so.
I also agree that after a substitution process if a player remains on the bench due to confusion that play should be allowed to continue with only four players. There is no rule which says otherwise.
I DO NOT agree that the player who mistakenly remained on the bench should be allowed to return to the court during live action in all cases. This could confer an advantage and could be deceptive to the opponent. I would have to believe that an unsporting technical foul may be appropriate.

Furthermore, I have stated that with the rule change from a couple of years ago which altered the penalty for leaving the floor from a technical foul to a mere violation that there was no rule under which to penalize a player for leaving and remaining on the bench. I've disagreed with the rationale given in the ruling of Case Book play 10.3.3 Sit B (2006-07 version) for a few years now: "A technical foul is charged to A5 for returning during playing action even though A5 had not been replaced." There was no such rule which stated that this was illegal or a T. There was nothing upon which to base this ruling.
So now the NFHS has changed this Case Book play. The 2007-08 version says, "No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court."
But the question now must be what if it does?

I would have liked to see the NFHS say that there is no penalty if the player who mistakenly went to the bench remains there until the next dead ball, but it is a T if he returns during playing action as it is classified as an unsporting foul.

Not sure that you can...in explicit terms. Touching with the hand isn't what is illegal. It is being OOB while touching it. So, the touch itself is legal. Stepping OOB is not.

OK, Scrapper looked it up (http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...3&postcount=17). It wasn't actually a case or interp. but a line in the rule that was added to the throwin rule in 04-05 to say that it should have been at the original throwin spot since it was a violation of the throwin.

Now, according to Scrapper, it was moved to the out-of-bounds rule (where it should have been all along), no longer a throwin violation. This restores the throwin spot to match all other OOB violations...at the spot of the violation.

You, a smartass? Never would have thought it. Although your technique did start to resemble others I've seen here. ;)

Yes and yes. The NFHS made an editorial change a couple of years ago that messed this up. Now they have fixed it by moving and making what was 9-2-10 (2007) into 9-3-2 (2008), and the old 9-3-2 (2007) is now 9-3-3 (2008).
This is much better. This is no longer classified as a throw-in violation, but rather has become an out of bounds violation. The ensuing throw-in will be from the spot of the OOB violation.

The NFHS and others......for 11 pages.

I so confussed. :confused:

That's funny, but I can't believe that NFHS doesn't have someone who sees how confusing this is.

Aren't the interpretations posted each year to "clarify" the rules ;)

Maybe next year ...

Thanks
David

According to the official NFHS dictionary, the definition of "clarify" is "to obfuscate". :D

ahh we can only dream...someday..

Are the interpretations available online? Can you provide a link? Thanks!

www.nfhs.org

Then click sports, basketball, interps

Thanks Bob, I was right there just couldn't find the path!

Have you tried Zen?

http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos...27/zen_cat.jpg

Have you tried Hare Krishna?

http://www.cinematical.com/images/20...ppet.movie.jpg