POI and Referee Magazine case play

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

These rulings repeatedly use some form of "ball was located". There's a really neat entry in Rule 4 (Definitions), headed "Ball Location". I've already cited it for you. That tells you how to determine "where the ball was located". I'm not just making this up as I go along. I actually have a rule to back me up.

This is what happens when you skip your Metamucil in the morning.

What he said.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't believe it was ever intended to define precise "location". Status, not position.

With all respect, whatever you believe about the rule, it does indeed define precise location. Until there's a POE that says, "here's what we meant. . .", I think we have to go with what the rulebook actually says.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I believe the ball location rule is only talking about "general" location.....inbounds/out-of-bounds or backcourt/frontcourt. I don't believe it was ever intended to define precise "location". Status, not position.

What he said.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I think we have to go with my interpretation of what the rulebook actually says.

Fixed it for ya.....

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Fixed it for ya.....

You're joking, right? My interpretation? You're just trying to get a rise out of me, right? Please tell me you're not serious.

I'm not giving an interpretation. I'm simply reading the rule. "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court."

Anyone who claims that a ball in flight that was last touched in the backcourt can be in the frontcourt is giving an interpretation (a very poor one), and frankly, ignoring the rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Anyone who claims that a ball in flight that was last touched in the backcourt can be in the frontcourt is giving an interpretation (a very poor one), and frankly, ignoring the rule.

And anybody that maybe wants to have a throw-in 70 away from where the ball was when a double foul occurred and call that throw-in spot "the spot nearest to where the ball was located" is frankly not thinking about the intent and purpose of that rule imco.

Imo the rulesmakers want to put the POI at the closest spot to where the ball IS when the interruption occurs....not at the spot of what caused that interruption....and not where the ball WAS before the interruption occurred.

What you think is the mindless raving of a senile mind might actually be what the rulesmakers intended.

Seriously!

I never joke.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Despite what the rule on ball location appears to say, I'm leaning towards agreeing with JR on this one. I believe the ball location rule is only talking about "general" location.....inbounds/out-of-bounds or backcourt/frontcourt. I don't believe it was ever intended to define precise "location". Status, not position.

I agree with both JR and Camron. The subject(s) of NFHS Rule 4 is BALL LOCATION, AT DISPOSAL. NFHS R4-S4-A3 states: "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court." Article 3 has always defined the location of the ball with regard to its status as either being inbounds or out-of-bounds, or being in the backcourt or in the front court. In other words, the ball is either inbounds or out-out-bounds, or the ball is either in the backcourt or the front court. The using of Article 3 in the manner that Referee Magazine is trying to use it is not in keeping with what Article 3 has defined for at least 45 years.

I am adding the following as an edit. Article 3 has always been interpreted to mean court status of the ball, and when it was written there was no such thing as Point-of-Interruption. Maybe Article 3 needs to be tweaked and the penalty needs to be written a little better.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What you think is the mindless raving of a senile mind might actually be what the rulesmakers intended.

So we have the rule on the one hand, and your interpretation -- which may be what was intended -- on the other.

As I said, until there is a POE that says differently, I will enforce the rule, which for once is completely unambiguous.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

As I said, until there is a POE that says differently, I will enforce the rule, which for once is completely unambiguous.

We disagree.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Article 3 has always defined the location of the ball with regard to its status as either being inbounds or out-of-bounds, or being in the backcourt or in the front court. In other words, the ball is either inbounds or out-out-bounds, or the ball is either in the backcourt or the front court.

Again with all respect, this is simply not true. Yes, the rule serves to define frontcourt/backcourt status; but not only that. Article 4 makes no reference at all to inbounds/out of bounds, or frontcourt/backcourt; neither does Article 3, although I can see how you might try to interpret it as referring only to Articles 1 and 2.

Rule 4-4 is not solely about inbounds/out of bounds. It defines the ball's location on the court, period. If an official chooses to ignore that location when administering the POI, that's up to him or her. But s/he will be wrong.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Again with all respect, this is simply not true. Yes, the rule serves to define frontcourt/backcourt status; but not only that. Article 4 makes no reference at all to inbounds/out of bounds, or frontcourt/backcourt; neither does Article 3, although I can see how you might try to interpret it as referring only to Articles 1 and 2.

Rule 4-4 is not solely about inbounds/out of bounds. It defines the ball's location on the court, period. If an official chooses to ignore that location when administering the POI, that's up to him or her. But s/he will be wrong.

Scrapper:

With all due respect, the history of the rule is very important. Article 3 of R4-S4 has, for at least 45 years (that covers my playing days as well as my entire officiating career), defined the court status of the ball. I repeat that when Article 3 was written the concept of Point-of-Interruption did not exist. With the advent of Point-of-Interruption, the word "location" may not be the best word to be used in Article 3, but until Article 3 is revised, it means what it has meant for over 45 years, court status of the ball.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

I'm with scrappy on this. Without another definition for ball position (as opposed to status), we need to use the definition we have. The book doesn't differentiate between them, so I'm not sure we should.

[Nevadaref]

Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!
I get to correct JR and MTD in the same thread!
RM got this one right.

Here is the play ruling which Bob Jenkins mentioned:
2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 2: Post players A5 and B5 are called for a double personal foul while the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 in A's backcourt to A2 in A's frontcourt. RULING: Team A had control of the ball when the double foul occurred, and thus play will be resumed at the point of interruption. Team A will have a designated spot throw-in in A's backcourt nearest to where A1 was last in contact with the ball. (4-4-3; 4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-9)

LESSON: ALWAYS LISTEN TO BOB!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

RM got this one right.

Here is the play ruling which Bob Jenkins mentioned. . .

Thank you.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

LESSON: ALWAYS LISTEN TO BOB!

Thanks for finding the play and saving me the effort of searching.