POI and Referee Magazine case play

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's a specific case play or interp (in the year the "POI" first appeared) that clarifies that "where the ball was located" is the same as "the spot the ball was last in contact with a player or the court" (or whatever the specific wording in rule 4-Ball Location is)."

IOW, you're wrong, fan boy.

POI first appeared in the 2005-06 rulebook. In the 2005-06 casebook...at the very front...the following case play was detailed:

7.5.9 SITUATION A; A1 shoots and while the ball is in flight the officials call a double foul on post players A5 and B5. The try for goal is (a) successful or (b) unsuccessful.
RULING: In both (a) and (b), A5 and B5 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. In (a) the goal shall count and team B is awarded a throw-in anywhere along the end line. In (b), since the point of interruption was an unsuccessful goal, the team entitled to the arrow at the spot nearest to where the ball was located when the fouls occurred.

In the current case book, we have:

4.19.8 SITUATION E: A1 has control of the ball in team A's frontcourt. Post players A5 and B5 are pushing each other in an attempt to gain a more advantageous position on the block while (a) A1 is dribbling the ball;(b) the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 to A2; or (c) the ball is in the air on an unsuccessful try for goal by A1.
RULING In (a) and (b), 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 throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with a throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. had the try been successful, the point of interruption for team B would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line.

Old 7.5.9SitA obviously was incorporated into 4.19.8SitE. Note that we are instructed to locate the throw-in at the closest spot to the ball when the whistle blew, not at the point of origin of a pass/shot. It doesn't say to take it back to where a pass originated from or was deflected, or to where a shot originated from either.

The ball goes to where it IS when you blow the whistle, nor where it WAS.

I couldn't find anything in my old books that says anything different.

JMCO, moderator man.

[mdray]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

POI first appeared in the 2005-06 rulebook. In the 2005-06 casebook...at the very front...the following case play was detailed:

7.5.9 SITUATION A; A1 shoots and while the ball is in flight the officials call a double foul on post players A5 and B5. The try for goal is (a) successful or (b) unsuccessful.
RULING: In both (a) and (b), A5 and B5 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. In (a) the goal shall count and team B is awarded a throw-in anywhere along the end line. In (b), since the point of interruption was an unsuccessful goal, the team entitled to the arrow at the spot nearest to where the ball was located when the fouls occurred.

In the current case book, we have:

4.19.8 SITUATION E: A1 has control of the ball in team A's frontcourt. Post players A5 and B5 are pushing each other in an attempt to gain a more advantageous position on the block while (a) A1 is dribbling the ball;(b) the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 to A2; or (c) the ball is in the air on an unsuccessful try for goal by A1.
RULING In (a) and (b), 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 throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with a throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. had the try been successful, the point of interruption for team B would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line.

Old 7.5.9SitA obviously was incorporated into 4.19.8SitE. Note that we are instructed to locate the throw-in at the closest spot to the ball when the whistle blew, not at the point of origin of a pass/shot. It doesn't say to take it back to where a pass originated from or was deflected, or to where a shot originated from either.

The ball goes to where it IS when you blow the whistle, nor where it WAS.

I couldn't find anything in my old books that says anything different.

JMCO, moderator man.

but wouldn't we consider the definition of ball location in 4-4-3 (last year's book) -- "a ball which is flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court"

Seems to me that means POI is where the pass originated from.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

RULING: In both (a) and (b), A5 and B5 are charged with personal fouls and play shall resume from the point of interruption. In (a) the goal shall count and team B is awarded a throw-in anywhere along the end line. In (b), since the point of interruption was an unsuccessful goal, the team entitled to the arrow at the spot nearest to where the ball was located when the fouls occurred.

In the current case book, we have:

RULING In (a) and (b), 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 throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with a throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. had the try been successful, the point of interruption for team B would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line.

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.

[mdray]

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".

sorry to just repeat what you already posted! I read this sitch earlier and just got around to adding my 2 cents without re-reading all the replies

[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.

[chartrusepengui]

Somehow I get the feeling that there is going to be a POE on the POI. JMHO!

[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 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 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.

[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 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.

[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.