Figuring out the RPP revision

[Nevadaref]

Has the NFHS actually changed the rule or simply clarified it. It's certainly not clear to me.

The resumption-of-play procedure used to be in force ONLY after a time-out or following an intermission. Those were the only two times that it applied.

Now if I read the editorial change correctly the 2007-08 book has added a third--when the throw-in team does not make a thrower available.

While we've always been authorized to put the ball down on the floor in this case, it hasn't been classified as RPP afaik.

So is the NFHS really saying that prior to any throw-in RPP is in effect if a thrower doesn't come to the spot?

On the other hand perhaps this was just a typo. Perhaps the word "or" is extraneous in the text of 4-38 and just slipped in there: "...make a thrower available or following..." When one examines the structure of 7-5-1 it seems that there are still only two instances in which RPP applies. It specifically says "after a time-out or the intermission between any quarter." (BTW I think that it should read "between any two quarters." ) There is no mention of after a violation or a foul. This makes me think that there was a mistake made in the wording of 4-38.

What do you guys think?

If a third element to RPP has been added, what is the affect upon the game? Can a team get a T for not having a thrower come over after a violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

On the other hand perhaps this was just a typo. Perhaps the word "or" is extraneous in the text of 4-38 and just slipped in there: "...make a thrower available or following..." When one examines the structure of 7-5-1 it seems that there are still only two instances in which RPP applies. It specifically says "after a time-out or the intermission between any quarter." (BTW I think that it should read "between any two quarters." ) There is no mention of after a violation or a foul. This makes me think that there was a mistake made in the wording of 4-38.

What do you guys think?

I think that 4-38 has a typo (the extra "or") you mention.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

While we've always been authorized to put the ball down on the floor in this case, it hasn't been classified as RPP afaik.

So is the NFHS really saying that prior to any throw-in RPP is in effect if a thrower doesn't come to the spot?

I think it's just a matter of putting the procedure under the heading. I know it's been confusing for me, and I missed a question on the test one year. Howard explained it to me, and I just finally had to accept that even though the procedure was the same, the "title" of the procedure wasn't the same. I guess I wasn't the only one who thought this was silly.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I think it's just a matter of putting the procedure under the heading. I know it's been confusing for me, and I missed a question on the test one year. Howard explained it to me, and I just finally had to accept that even though the procedure was the same, the "title" of the procedure wasn't the same. I guess I wasn't the only one who thought this was silly.

Got bad news for you, Juulie. There is another test question on it this year.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Got bad news for you, Juulie. There is another test question on it this year.

Oooo, Nevada, you are so busted. You're not supposed to be giving hints about the test!! Bad, Nevada. Bad, bad.

PS Thanks for the clue!

[Splute]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think that 4-38 has a typo (the extra "or") you mention.

So if I see this question on the test, and the question states "the resumption of play is only used after T.O.'s and intermissions" do I go with current rule 4-38 and state FALSE? I was given a practice test with this question on it....

[FrankHtown]

Splute, are you taking the test online? If so, here's what you do: print out the question, show it to 23 veterans, get their opinion, then show it to the most knowledgeable rule person in our chapter, get their opinion, then flip a coin.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

Splute, are you taking the test online? If so, here's what you do: print out the question, show it to 23 veterans, get their opinion, then show it to the most knowledgeable rule person in our chapter, get their opinion, then flip a coin.

Ha, thanks a million!! No, during Chapter Training we were given a practice test to take home, answer and verify with rule notations. This question is on there and I was curious if they are taking into account the new wording in 4-38 as Nevada mentioned or previous interps as in 7-5. I answered FALSE because rule 4-38, imo, has a third situation that includes throw-ins. Just curious.... one question out of 80 or so shouldnt be too bad.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

Splute, are you taking the test online? If so, here's what you do: print out the question, show it to 23 veterans, get their opinion, then show it to the most knowledgeable rule person in our chapter, get their opinion, then flip a coin.

And to answer your quesiton, NO, not online, we newbies will be taking it together at the Campbell center on October 17th.

[FrankHtown]

Well, you're ahead of me. I don't get my rule, case and manual till contract night on the 28th. But I took the test on line in September..get it out of the way..missed 2 out of 50.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

Well, you're ahead of me. I don't get my rule, case and manual till contract night on the 28th. But I took the test on line in September..get it out of the way..missed 2 out of 50.

good job I hope to do as well. I have so much in my head right now I am not sure I can actually call them on the floor. It is so much easier from the stands