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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by What MTD should email to Mary

That's definitive. I was wrong.

Take it like a man. JR did.