POI and Referee Magazine case play

[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.