I never did hide my change of heart; I said I was changing my ruling in the second sentence of my very first paragraph (there were only two sentences in that paragraph) of my second posting. How is that hiding? I stated up front that I had reconsidered some of my positions.


I have always agreed with you concerning your first two points above. Both of those penalties deal with Team B committing an infraction of the rules before NFHS R4-S46-A1 has been invoked. Why? By definition, the throw-in violation by B1 is supposed to cause the ball to become dead. Meaning that that in: Penalty 3, B1's touching of the ball is to be ignored because the ball is already dead unless in the official's judgment B1's touching the ball is unsportsmanlike; Penalty 4, B1's contact with A1 is to be ignored because the ball is already dead unless in the official's judgment B1's contact with A1 is unsportsmanlike. BUT the NFHS did not want the contact with the ball or the contact with A1 to be ignored. Therefore the Penalties 3 and 4 presume that R4-S46-A1 has not been invoked yet, the oficial acknowledges the throw-in violation by B1, by issuing an official team warning, but penalizes the TF in 3 and the IPF in 4 because these infractions and their penalties are more severe than the penalty for the throw-in.

Re-read my second post. My second post deals with how to deal with the original play that started this discussion [my Play 1c(i, ii, iii)], and that is when B1 reached thru the boundary-line plane and made contact with A1, an official team warning for R4-S46-A1 was already in the scorebook. The instant that B1 reached thru the boundary-line plane Team B had committed a technical foul and this technical foul cannot be ignored. The problem is to how to handle B1's contact with A1 and that is what I tried to address in my second post.

And yes I do intend to email Mary Struckhoff at NFHS as well as a few past and present members of the NFHS Rules Committee for their learned opinions.

That was the $0.50 version.

Mark,please post your answer when you get an A.R. Until then,I disagree with you double-penalising a player.The key words in R9-2Penalty3&4 are "no warning for delay required".That covers all cases,and the rest of the language is very precise.

As I have stated before, by definition, the ball becomes dead when B1 committed the throw-in violation of reaching thru the boundary-line plane, meaning if B1 were to contintue on and touch the ball being held by A1 or make contact with A1, those two actions are to be ignored unless they are unsportsmanlike (in the official's judgment). But NFHS R4-S46-A1 cause an exception to the dead ball definition to be in effect for these two situations if the R4-S46-A1 has not yet been invoked. That is why "no warning for delay required" is at the end of R9-S2, Penalties 3 and 4. But once the R4-S46-A1 warning has been officially entered into the scorebook, B1's breaking of the boundary-line plane has to be penalized regardless of what he does after breaking the boundary-line plane. In my revised posting I did not say that you HAD to double penalize Team B in my Play 1c(i, ii, iii), but the official has three options available to him because R10-S1-A10 has to take precedence over R9-S2, Penalty 4.

Mark Iam not sure I agree with your interpretation.

Let's assume the ball becomes dead when the player breaks the plane, and you have already given the warning.

Then what you said is that unless the contact is nsportsmanlike, the contact is ignored. If that is the case then why would the book talk about intentional fouls on the guy OOB? If the ball is dead then any foul on a player out of bound is a T, and there could be no leeway for making it intentional since all dead ball fouls that are called are T's.

I disagree breaking the plane makes te ball dead automatically.

There are different penalties on the defense for doing something stupid on the throw-in.

Breaking the plane is a delay tactic- warning once-if it occurs again it is a T (I dont have my books with me but if I remember right)Delays are are assigned to the team. It is not given to the player as a personal foul.

Hitting the ball while it is OOB is a T assigned to the player. (Read this as a non-contact foul while ball is live)

Fouling a player who is OOB is intentional. (Read this as contact while ball is live)

If the rules comitte had wanted the ball to become dead when the plane was broken they would have stated that more clearly and not have intentional foul ruling that contradict the basic premise of rule.

My two cents are that the ball on a delay on a throw-in remains live until we make it dead to issue a warning. I know all other delay situations the ball is dead, which will give you ammunition to say the ball is dead here, but I dont think you could ever justify calling or creating ruling that it is an intentional foul on a defensive player if the ball was dead.

Padgett- my apologies this was my fifty cent version

I can't believe we're still having this conversation. JR hit the nail on the head in his first response to Mark. The penalty section of rule 9-2 is unmistakable. "If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and fouls the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall be charged to the offender." There are no "alternatives" here. You call the intentional (personal) and move on. What is the confusion on this? :confused:

If you're still unsure, look at case 9.2.11. It deals with touching the ball instead of the player, but the application is the same.

Chuck

Right. Also look at the 10.3.12 cases. All impose only a single penalty -- not one for breaking the plane, plus another for contacting the ball / player.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

As I have stated before, by definition, the ball becomes dead when B1 committed the throw-in violation of reaching thru the boundary-line plane, meaning if B1 were to contintue on and touch the ball being held by A1 or make contact with A1, those two actions are to be ignored unless they are unsportsmanlike (in the official's judgment).

Mark,R9-2-11Penalty3&4 says that a T or an intentional foul "SHALL" be called.Not "may"--"SHALL!!".It also says that a warning is NOT required before you call these.The rulebook won't allow us to ignore these acts.There is NO judgement allowed in the way these plays are written!!

"Wolkenkookkooksheim!"-an historical quote for you,Mark.:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 10th, 2002 at 01:22 PM]

Hey Mark, I thought you cannot have a False Double Foul if the clock is stopped, I said Ball was tipped out by B1 then all the action took place. Clock was not running...... no time off the clock since ball was tipped out by B. We cannot have a false double foul here! Check your rule book on False Double foul on clock running or not??

I'm afraid you're wrong.
 

I think Mark is wrong about a couple of things in this thread. However, he was not wrong about this being a FDF. A false double foul does not require that any time run off the clock. The only requirement is that the second foul occurs before the clock starts. It does not say that the clock has to be running when the first foul occurs.

Well, Tom, looks like you're the one who needs to check the rule book. Good thing you didn't bet any money on that one :) There's no provision regarding false double fouls that says the clock must be running. In fact, since in most cases false double fouls do not occur simultaneously, at least one of the FDFs will almost always occur with the clock stopped.

Example: A1 drives to the basket. B1 fouls A1 while A1 is in the act of shooting (personal foul). A1's basket is successful. A1 walks to the FT line (with clock stopped) and then verbally taunts B1 (technical foul).

This is a case of false double fouls. The fouls are by opponents where the order of the fouls is easily determined.

Hope that's helpful.

Chuck

Beat 'cha to it! :D

OK, I know the rule but Hey, I bet I tripped Mark's trigger, watch his respons eon this one!

By 4 lousy minutes! :mad:

Chuck ;)

I have written a letter to Mary Struckhoff, NFHS Basketball Rules Committee Editor. If any of you would like a copy of the letter, just email me and I will be happy to email you a copy of the letter. Once I get an answer from Mary I will be happy to post.