Use of the word "allowance" in NFHS rule 9-7-3...?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

If a player backs down for 5 seconds, there is a rule that covers that one as well...( Closely Guarded)

So, you'll allow a player to be in the paint for 2.5 seconds near the free throw line, then back his way down for an additional 4.5 seconds, then pick up the ball, pump fake, and shoot?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Evidently BOTH of you missed the part of the rule that says "dribbles in OR moves immediately to try for goal."

The rule does NOT say "dribbles in immediately to try for goal," now does it?

Are you saying that the language is stating that the word "immediately" only applies to trying for goal? If so, I disagree. My interpretation is that you have to either immediately dribble in or you have to immediately try for goal.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

My interpretation is that you have to either immediately dribble in or you have to immediately try for goal.

It doesn't say that though, does it?

PSidbury, we've debated this time and time again on this forum. The truth is the NFHS has never defined it for us. I would just say don't go outside the standard that is used in your area. Discuss it at your local clinics and see how others are calling it and what your supervisor says. There's a lot of room for judgment in this scenario.

[truerookie]

What about AD/DAD? In some of the interpretations I have seen up to this point this puts the defense at a DAD.

[BktBallRef]

If the defense allows the ball to get into the paint, they've placed themselves at a disadvantage.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

So, you'll allow a player to be in the paint for 2.5 seconds near the free throw line, then back his way down for an additional 4.5 seconds, then pick up the ball, pump fake, and shoot?

I did not say that...previous posts talked about backing down and it taking 5 seconds. My point was that there are violations to cover that...

I expect player to immediately drive or shoot...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

As soon as he pulls the ball down on the pump fake, he's no longer trying to score. Violation. The pivot/step-through is part of the continuous motion of the try. Legal.

I agree. That's the way we've always been taught here in Connecticut.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If the defense allows the ball to get into the paint, they've placed themselves at a disadvantage.

This is a valid point

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Are you saying that the language is stating that the word "immediately" only applies to trying for goal? If so, I disagree. My interpretation is that you have to either immediately dribble in or you have to immediately try for goal.

You can't apply the immediately to both the dribble and the try. It's either one or the other.

Let me enumerate the possibilities by expanding the OR:

1. (dribbles in immediately OR moves immediately) to try for goal
   • Doens't say the try has to be immediate
   • A dribble inward must be immediate (ending in a try)
     • the dribble hasn't been given a time limit or speed
   • a movement must be immediate (ending in a try)
     • such movement hasn't been given a time limit or speed
2. (dribbles in) OR (moves immediately) to try for goal
   • Doens't say the try has to be immediate
   • A dribble inward doesn't necessarily have to be immediate
   • • the dribble hasn't been given a time limit or speed
   • a non-dribble movement must be immediate (ending in a try)
3. (dribbles in OR moves) (immediately to try for goal)
   • Grammatical nonsense...for immediately to apply to the goal, it would have to appear in a different location....
     • to immediately try for a goal
     • to try for an immediate goal

As you can see, there is no way for the immedaite to be applied to the goal. The only sensible options are that the actions that precede the goal must begin by the 3 second mark and must continune to a point ending in a goal. If they cease, the allowance is lost.

How does this end up working....player in the lane just inside the FT line for 2.9 seconds and starts a dribble moving towards the basket. As long as that move continues towards the basket and ends in a try, there is no violation. If the player drives down the right side, gets stoped, and reverses to back across to the other side (or just stops), 3 seconds. As soon as they reverse directions, it's over. If they pump fake immediately to a shot, I'm not calling 3 seconds. If they pump fake and pause afterwards, violation. They get one chance to make a play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can't apply the immediately to both the dribble and the try.

Wanna bet I can't?

[truerookie]

3 seconds is a call that the majority of officials view as a game interrupter. They would rather give the offensive player more than the allotted time to maintain a flow to the game. This is what I gather from the debate no one has come and and stated that yet.

[MN BB Ref]

In reality this is probably all a moot point anyway. I think it is highly unlikely that a player would be able to start a slow dribble and back someone down in the lane. This is normally a pretty congested area and if someone were to do this, I would expect that ball would be stolen or swatted away by another defender in pretty short order. Normally I see this type of play occur when player is on the low block, and even then defensive help usually arrives pretty darn quickly so the offensive player doesn't really get to enjoy a slow dribble to the basket. This is a good topic for conversation, but perhaps a different scenario would be more realistic.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Wanna bet I can't?

You're rewriting the rule to fit your own belief then...something you repeatedly lambast others for doing. The grammar just doesn't support that no matter how you read it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're rewriting the rule to fit your own belief then...something you repeatedly lambast others for doing. The grammar just doesn't support that no matter how you read it.

You're interpreting the language to fit your own belief...something that you repeatedly lambaste others for doing. The grammar just doesn't support that no matter how you read it.



It isn't covered definitively. Deal with it. I have.