2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) I don't feel like climbing up in the attic but I am pretty sure that this play has been in either the NFHS Casebook or the Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada Casebook in the past.

2) This is really a simple play and as I have said earlier in this post, this interpretation has been in effect for both high school and college for well over 45 years. I can't see any other ruling based upon the rules.

1) You can spend a year in your freaking attic and you'll never find anything to support that statement. There's NEVER been anything cited at ANY time ANYWHERE that will back you up.

2) And the correct call to be made when a defender moves laterally under an airborne opponent after that opponent has left their feet is a simple play too. That didn't stop the (very) odd official from screwing that call completely up also. The same type of official would call a violation on this play.

[BktBallRef]

This ruling is nonsense and cannot be supported by rule.

The rule clearly says, "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. "

The ball was last touched in the frontcourt by B, meaning that it was NOT last touched in the froncourt by A. It was touched in the backcourt by A.

Now, I am challenging MTD to PROVE that this interpretation has been in force for 45 years. You see, just you saying so doesn't mean didley. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

This ruling is nonsense and cannot be supported by rule.

The rule clearly says, "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. "

The ball was last touched in the frontcourt by B, meaning that it was NOT last touched in the froncourt by A. It was touched in the backcourt by A.

That's a concise analysis of why that particular ruling should never have been issued. It simply does not have rules backing.