![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
And btw, I leave moderating to the mods. That's their job. They've deleted a ton of my posts in the past when they felt that I went overboard. That's their job, not some clown tsk-tsking me for saying something that might have been blunt but was still true. As I said, feel free to call whatever you feel like calling. Ignore the case book. You'll get exactly what you deserve. |
|
|||
Quote:
The Casebook is an extension of the Rules Book. We all know that while, for the most part, the Rules Book is pretty clear when read in depth, there are some situations - or cases - where it is not 100% clear how a rule should be applied. The Casebook is the way the NFHS clarifies those situations. It carries the same weight as the Rules Book, and is the official interpretation of the rules. To say that the Rules Book backs you up while the Casebook does not is reading more into the Rules Book than is there. The analogy posted above by Mark is a good one - case law decided by the Supreme Court is law. You may even disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on any number of issues, but it doesn't change the fact that it is now enforceable law. You can petition the court - or in our case the NFHS - to change it's rulings, but until they do, we are all required to abide by the law as citizens/players and enforce the law as police officers/officials. This is either arguement for arguement's sake, which is unfortunate, or a stubborn misunderstanding of what the Casebook actually is. PS. By the way, I say this not as someone who is always correct - I've been wrong on my share of Rules, and others have corrected me here. That's why I'm here. I'm in my second year of serious officiating and have a lot to learn. But, one thing I do know is that when a clear Rules citation or Casebook citation is given, that's the end of the arguement. |
|
|||
Quote:
The NFHS disagrees. Given their clarification by issuing a case play, I (and, I'd hope, you) now know how to call it. If you think the case is "wrong", propose a rules change. At the very least, be clear here that you are discussing "what the rule should be" and not "what the rule is". |
|
|||
Quote:
I guess I could and should do that. this is a pretty trivial play anyway. How many times will you see a player not even make a move toward the OOB line to throw it in. If NFHS wants a violation on that play, fine. There is a good point made about the supreme court law, but it is also weak on the NFHS part to not give or cite anywhere in the rule book that this case play is backed by. I found nowhere, where this play was supported. It seems like it was pulled out of thin air. Does that not bother anyone else? Let me ask this question then. If you had no idea what the rule, oh excuse me, the casebook play on this was, what would your gut tell you to do on this play? After this I"m leaving this alone cause it is such a trivial play that there are far better plays that should be discussed rather than one that you might see happen every once in a while. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
I would call a throw-in violation.
I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. There are certain activities during a basketball game that must be done from a specified location. If that doesn't happen then the activity wasn't properly excuted, so that player violated the rules. For example, a FT must be attempted from within the semi-circle, a jumper must stand within the proper half of the circle for the jump ball, a rebounder who is along the FT lane must take a position within one of the marked lane spaces. All that you have to understand is that it is illegal for a player to attempt any of these activities from a location other than that specified in the rules. That's not so hard. |
|
|||
Quote:
I don't get the arguement that it doesn't fit the intent of the rules at all. Not calling this a violation seems a violation the spirit and intent of the rules IMO. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
![]() The rules say the team shall make a throwin from OOB after a made basket. If they don't, they've violated the rules. Not being OOB is only one way to violate the throwin rules. Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
Item (1): You state that this is a trivial play. Just remember: "There are no small parts, just small actors." I don't remember who said this but it is an applicable quote. BECAUSE, the Rule is so clear on this play. For a throw-in to be a legal throw-in it must be made from behind the boundary line. In this play it was not. Even Mark, Jr. knew it was a violation without having to read the Casebook Play. If you haven't seen it very often then you have neither officiated for very long nor have you officiated very many games; especially at the jr. H.S. level, ![]() Item (2): Now you are learning I hope>' Item (3): If you read the Ohio (I live in the State of Ohio; BUT I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I did stay at a Hoiday Inn Express last night, no Bonnie didn't throw me out of the house but she could quailfy for sainthood even though she is not Catholic) Revised Code, you will find the law, but you won't find Case Law. But if you read Case Law, you will find the approiate references to the Ohio Revised Code. Get use to sports rules being the same as the law. The Rule states that for a throw-in to be legal it must be taken from behind the boundary line. The player in the OP did not make the throw-in from behind the boundary line as required. The Casebook Play gave an example of such a type of play that would be a violation of the Rule. And NO it was not pulled out of thin air or any bodily orifice, therefore it does not bother me. The Casebook Play RULING was made using the correct Rule reference. Item (4): Since this is a trivial play, one really doesn't need to make a gut (and I have a substantional gut, LOL) decision on this play. It is covered by Rule. Casebook Plays exist to show give expamples of how the Rules are to be applied. I have been a H.S. official for 37 years and a college official for 34 years, that means I have accumulated (much to my saintly wife's consternation) a substantional (not unlike my gut) amount of books containing Rules and Casebook Plays. There are Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings that are not in the current publications that still are in effect because there has not been a rule change that would change the RULING in that Casebook Play or the Approved Ruling that is not in the current publication. How does a young grasshopper like yourself aquire the knowledge that old geezers like JR, Peter Webb, BkbRef, and I have accumulated. Study every publication regarding the rules, casebook plays, approved rulings, and mechanics you can get your hands on. Such as all NFHS, NCAA, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA publications. If you can afford it become a member of Officiating.com, NASO, IAABO, and Eofficials.com and then read everything that these organizations have to offer. Even go to officiating camps and clinics. Finally, ask questions and listen to the answers. Seek out the best and the brightest. I am sure that the local officials associations have learned officials will answer your questions. Go to the horse's mouth if you want to have your questions answsered, such as the NFHS and NCAA Rules editors. MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The Case Book is an extension of the Rule Book. The Case Book is clear. 9.2.2 is an extension of 9-2-2. You know it, we know it. But you're too damn prideful to admit that you're wrong. Fine. Just continue down that path and you'll never improve.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
OK, guys. Riddle me this. Team A scores. The ball comes through the basket where it is picked up by B1. B1 throws the ball to B2 who is standing about 10 feet or so upcourt from B1. Would you then blow your whistle claiming this is an "improper" inbound pass since B1 never went OOB, or would you continue your 5 second count, thinking B1 just wants B2 to take the ball OOB for the inbound pass and wait to see what B2 does?
IOW - when do you make the determination on whether or not a player's throwing of the ball to another player in this situation is which kind of play? What criteria do you use? It would seem to me there is something ambiguous here. Yes, I know we use our judgment all game long but wouldn't it just make it easier to change the rule so they have 5 seconds to take it out and make the pass - period. You'd still get the violation and it would take all the guesswork out of the play.
__________________
Yom HaShoah |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oh Boy! we have a mess! | Ron Pilo | Basketball | 33 | Mon Dec 10, 2007 04:24pm |
What a Mess! | umpire99 | Baseball | 14 | Mon Mar 26, 2007 08:40am |
When you just mess up... | NewNCref | Basketball | 17 | Mon Feb 19, 2007 02:11pm |
What a mess... | ElPanadero | Baseball | 14 | Fri Mar 24, 2006 04:10am |
What a mess! | Buckeye12 | Baseball | 14 | Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:02am |