POI and Referee Magazine case play

[just another ref]

Here's where it gets interesting. The pass in question is deflected by B1, then intercepted by B2 about the time the whistle sounds. The officials must decide if the foul occurs before B gains control. If not, then as I understand it, Team A would have a throw-in at the spot nearest the deflection by B1. Nobody in the gym could figure that one out on his own.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by 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!

First, I admit that I should have caught the mistake in the ruling of 2006-07 NFHS Basketball Interpretation 2. This would not be the first time that the NFHS Rules Committee has made a ruling that could not be supported by rule. Approximately four (4) or five (5) years ago the NFHS Rules Committee published a play in its supplemental intepretations and gave an incorrect ruling, even referenced rules that did not apply to the situation. The only problem with this was the fact that the same had been a Casebook play that had been published years earlier and it had the correct ruling and referenced the applicable rules. It took three emails by me to Mary Struckhoff before she would admit that the NFHS ruling in its supplemental interpretations was incorrect and published a correction.

The problem is two fold: (1) Too many members of the Rules Committee are not real experts in the rules. And (2), nobody bothers to check if there is an existing Casebook Play.


Now lets get back to the 2006-07 NFHS Rules Interpretation shall we:

Many of you know that I study the history of the rules and their evolution. Furthermore, many of you know that I believe that we as officials (lawyers and trial judges) and interpreters (appellate and supreme court judges) must treat the rules and casebook plays and approved rulings as laws and precedents respectively.

The U.S., Canada, Australia, and other members of the former British Empire base their laws and rulings on English common law. The NFHS and the NCAA use the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada as it rules foundation; in fact, the NFHS and NCAA officially recognize the NBCUSC as their official predecessor.

The NBCUSC wrote the rules for NFHS and NCAA up to and including the 1977-78 or 1978-79 season (I didn’t feel like climbing up into the attic to check my rule books for which season, but I am leaning toward the 1977-78 season). The NFHS and NCAA published their own edition of the rules, casebook, and illustrated rules books, but the books were identical because the rules were written to take into account the length of quarters (high school), halves (college), and overtime periods (both H.S. and college).

The rule we have been discussing is NFHS R4-S4-A3 which states (and the wording has been virtually unchanged for over 45 years): “A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.”

Over the years the NCAA as tweaked the wording of NFHS R4-S4-A3 such that NCAA R4-S2-A3b states: “A live ball is in the front court or back court of the team in control as follows: A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the playing court.”

Notice how the NCAA has used the word “status” in NCAA R4-S2-A3b. The words “location” and “status” mean the same thing in these definitions. The rule (NFHS and NCAA) was meant and still means the back/front court status of the ball: The ball is either in the back court or it is in the front court. It does not mean and has never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) meant the location of the player which the ball touched or was touched by. . In other words the dictionary definition of “location” was not used by the NBCUSC Rules Committee.

Before Point-of-Interruption (POI), when the penalty for a personal foul required that the ball be put into play with a throw-in, the throw-in was nearest the spot of the foul. With POI the phrase “location of the ball” is used to define where the throw-in, if any, will be made. Here the word “location” is interpreted by its dictionary definition and that means the location of the ball with respect to a boundary line at the time of the Interruption. NFHS R4-S4-A3 cannot be used to determine the location of a POI throw-in because it does not apply to POI throw-ins.

There is no rule justification of having the POI throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was either touched by a player or touched a player. It has to be the actual location of the ball in relation to a boundary line at the time of the Interruption.

And finally, since I have already shown why R4-S4-A3 does not apply to this play, let us look at the other rule references in the 2006-07 play: R4-36 should read R4-S36-A2a, which states: "Play shall be resumed by a throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the interruption occurred." Just what I have been saying, the throw-in shall be taken from a spot nearest to the location of the ball with regard to its location to a boundary line when the interruption occurred. I do not know why R6-S4-A3g was referenced for this play because it has nothing to do with this play. And there is no such rule as R7-S5-A9.

Therefore NevadaRef, Camron, JR, and I are not wrong yet.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Mark,

The POI rule as we now know it in the NF is basically the same ruling the NCAA gave before the NF adopted POI for double and simultaneous fouls. I know that in the NCAA Meetings this very same issue was discussed in detail. I think the NF just adopted the NCAA position on this rule. I think you are taking this part of the rule very literally.

I keep going back to the fact, "What was the intent of the rule when it was adopted." I think the intent was to make the POI on the pass the last place the ball was released.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

[SIZE=4][B]

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)

That's definitive. I was wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There is no rule justification of having the POI throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was either touched by a player or touched a player. It has to be the actual location of the ball in relation to a boundary line at the time of the Interruption.

I agree. The NFHS rulesmakers don't. Guess who wins?

Deal with it.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Guess who wins?

That would be me.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree. The NFHS rulesmakers don't. Guess who wins?

Deal with it.

JR:

They only win if we let them win. I have defeated Mary Struckhoff before and I intend to do so again.

MTD, Sr.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

And there is no such rule as R7-S5-A9..

There was when the case book play was written.
7-5-9: "After a double personal foul, as in 4-19-8a; a double technical foul, as in 4-19-8b; or a simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-10; play shall be resumed at the point of interruption. See 4-36."

This rule was changed in 2005-06 when the POI was introduced. Previously, the alternating possession arrow was used.

This rule is now covered by 4-36-1 and 4-36-2a (definition of point of interruption).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Approximately four (4) or five (5) years ago the NFHS Rules Committee published a play in its supplemental intepretations and gave an incorrect ruling

Too many members of the Rules Committee are not real experts in the rules.

The U.S., Canada, Australia, and other members of the former British Empire base their laws and rulings on English common law.

The NBCUSC wrote the rules for NFHS and NCAA up to and including the 1977-78 or 1978-79 season

Notice how the NCAA has used the word “status” in NCAA R4-S2-A3b. The words “location” and “status” mean the same thing in these definitions.

Mark, no offense, but all of that is irrelevant. Every single point you make has no bearing at all on the question, particularly when you try to support your view of the FED rule by discussing the NCAA rule. They have nothing to do with one another.

The only relevant thing in your whole post is when you quote the actual rule under discussion:

The rule we have been discussing is NFHS R4-S4-A3 which states (and the wording has been virtually unchanged for over 45 years): “A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.”

The rule definitively and unambiguously defines exactly "where the ball is". Its location (including its inbound/out of bounds status and/or its backcourt/frontcourt status) IS wherever it last touched the court or a player. Whatever you think it should say or mean, it actually means exactly what it actually says.

Frankly, I'm astounded that you and JR can read this plain English sentence and come to such a contradictory conclusion.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

That would be me I.

Fixed it for you. I know how you love that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Fixed it for you. I know how you love that.

That reminds me, I need to add a goal.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Mark, no offense, but all of that is irrelevant. Every single point you make has no bearing at all on the question, particularly when you try to support your view of the FED rule by discussing the NCAA rule. They have nothing to do with one another.

The only relevant thing in your whole post is when you quote the actual rule under discussion:

The rule definitively and unambiguously defines exactly "where the ball is". Its location (including its inbound/out of bounds status and/or its backcourt/frontcourt status) IS wherever it last touched the court or a player. Whatever you think it should say or mean, it actually means exactly what it actually says.

Frankly, I'm astounded that you and JR can read this plain English sentence and come to such a contradictory conclusion.

Scrapper:

First, I admit that I did not do my due diligence (That means I just read the ruling and accepted without vetting the rules references that were given. with regard to the NFHS's 2006-07 Supplemental Rules Interpretations. Had I done so I would have sent an email post haste to Mary Struckhoff informing her of my concern and why.

Second, with all due respect, I have been a student of the rules of basketball for 38 years going on 39 years, and I can say without breaking my arm to pat myself on the back, that I have a far better knowledge of the rules and the history of the rules than the vast majority of the members of the NFHS Rules Committee. The 2006-07 interpretation is WRONG!! It is wrong because the rule that is being referenced (R4-S4-A3; please note that the Rules Committee references a rule that does not exist: R7-S5-A9; R6-S4-A3g does not apply; and R4-S36-A2a is the appropriate rule that applies to this play) cannot be applied in the manner that the Rules Committee want to apply it. And the way the NCAA rule is written is relevant because it evolved from the same NBCUSC rule that the NFHS did and in doing so it does an even better job of clearly stating what the NBCUSC, the NFHS, and NCAA have wanted all the 45-plus years.

This is not the first time the Rules Committee has issued and incorrect interpretation. A few years back they published and play and ruling in the Supplemental Rules Interpretations (SRI). The ruling was incorrect. What made things worse were the the following: (1) The interpretation referenced rules that did not apply to the situation or supported a ruling that was the opposite of the ruling was published; and (2) This play had been published a number of years earlier in the Casebook (at the time of the publication of the SRI the play was not in the Casebook any more) and the ruling in the Casebook referenced the correct rules and gave the correct ruling which was the opposite of the SRI. It took three emails to convince Mary to admit that the ruling in the SRI incorrect and to publish a correction.

It is my humble opinion, that while the members of the Rules Committee make a good faith effort in carrying out their duties, there just is not enough research is done by the Rules Committee in the history of a rule or past Casebook plays or interpretations.

It is Sep. 20/Sat.(01:48amEDT), 2008, and my dear wife and I had a long afernoon yesterday getting the concession stand ready for Start H.S.'s homecoming football game and a long night in the concession stand during the game. I am going to bed now and will address a letter to Mary Struckhoff in the early part of next week.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by What MTD should email to Mary

That's definitive. I was wrong.

Take it like a man. JR did.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Second, with all due respect, I have been a student of the rules of basketball for 38 years going on 39 years,

I'm glad we have all this mutual respect! But honestly, Mark, your historical perspective is completely irrelevant to this question. 4-4-3 states in plain English exactly where the ball is at any time, including when airborne during a long pass. Nobody -- not the Rules Committee, not me, not Mary -- nobody cares what the rule meant 40 years ago. It is completely, 100% irrelevant.

This is not the first time the Rules Committee has issued and incorrect interpretation.

You've already gone over this ground. And I'll say again -- it's not relevant to the current question. Yes, they've issued dubious interpretations, including one just last year about backcourt violations. What in the world does that possibly have to do with ball location now? Nothing.

I will address a letter to Mary Struckhoff in the early part of next week.

Good luck with that. My guess is that it will be to no avail.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

4-4-3 states in plain English exactly where the ball is at any time, including when airborne during a long pass.

Fwiw, I don't agree that the FED English is "plain" either.

Rule 4-36-2, which is the relative cite, isn't that clear. It took a case play that never made the book to explain it.

Having a POI located where the ball WAS at the time of the whistle instead of where the ball IS at the time of the whistle defies common sense imo. And apparently I'm not the only one that takes that view.