POI and Referee Magazine case play

[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.

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

I know. Hence, me being "astounded".

[Adam]

It seems to me that when the FED changed to POI on double fouls, they ran across the problem of needing to define something that hadn't previously been an issue; the physical location of a ball in flight. They'd had to define it's status for BC/FC issues, but defined "location" hadn't come up. Now, with POI, they needed something.

Well, what do you know, the definition of status fits pretty well, and it works as well as anything. They stuck with a rule they had in the book already instead of making some awkward distinction between status and location.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Well, what do you know, the definition of status fits pretty well, and it works as well as anything.

Gee, I think that maybe....just maybe....some officials might just have the capability to actually figure out the closest OOB location to an airborne ball when the whistle blows. And if you do have to guess, don't forget that you're making the exact same kind of guess when you locate the spot of the origin of the pass. Spot location of the throw-in would be just as accurate in both cases anyway. It ain't freaking brain surgery.

Riddle me this....if the ball was passed from just over center and it was almost (but still untouched) to a player on the endline when a double foul occurred, are you locating the subsequent throw-in at center?

As I said, locating a Point of Interruption at a POINT where the ball WASN'T when play was INTERRUPTED makes zero sense to me.

However, it is what it is.

[Adam]

Ah, but some people don't like being left to their common sense, JR. Others just shouldn't be left to their common sense. And some don't have common sense to use. Since everything needs to be defined, here we are....

If it's close enough I can't tell which happened first, I'll assume the player touched the ball before the double foul. If it's far enough that a 10 second call would be warranted if the situation were right, I'd go back to the release point.

That's just me, though.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Had I done so I would have sent an email post haste to Mary Struckhoff informing her of my concern and why...I am going to bed now and will address a letter to Mary Struckhoff in the early part of next week.

How did you get to be so chummy with Ms. Struckhoff. I've been a member of this Forum for a few years, and I can't remember anyone but you having such direct access to the NFHS basketball rules editor.

I would love to have her email address. Then I wouldn't have to read through so many posts, and opinions, to get quality answers to problematic questions. Instead, I could get the answer right out of the "horse's mouth" (no offense intended, she's actually quite attractive, maybe even hot). Wait a minute. Then I would miss out on all the fun.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would love to have her email address. Then I wouldn't have to read through so many posts, and opinions, to get quality answers to problematic questions.

Yes you would. My understanding from a fellow official who knows Ms. Struckhoff personally is that she rarely answers inquiries from individual officials. She will sometimes respond to a state board of officials, but she works for the NFHS, which works for the state associations; she does not work for the officials.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Yes you would. My understanding from a fellow official who knows Ms. Struckhoff personally is that she rarely answers inquiries from individual officials. She will sometimes respond to a state board of officials, but she works for the NFHS, which works for the state associations; she does not work for the officials.

Is it "Double Secret" (Dean Vernon Wormer)?

Scrapper1: Just between you and me, please P.M. it to me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is it "Double Secret" (Dean Vernon Wormer)?

Scrapper1: Just between you and me, please P.M. it to me.

Nope. It's not double secret. It's classified. I think you know what that means.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's classified. I think you know what that means.

Sure do. I can find it in this section of the newspaper:

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Scrapper1: Just between you and me, please P.M. it to me.

PM what to you? You lost me, Billy. If you mean Mary's email address, I don't have it. What I told you was told to me by someone else who knows her. I don't personally know her.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What I told you was told to me by someone else who knows her. I don't personally know her.

Is this like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but instead it's the six degrees of Mary Struckhoff?



Also, I was just kidding (but it would be nice to have that email address, although if I had her email address, I probably would be too timid to use it, after all, she is the queen of basketball rules, just like I would be nervous to actually speak to ChuckElias, the king of basketball rules, if I ever got the chance).

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr

The 2006-07 interpretation is WRONG!! please note that the Rules Committee references a rule that does not exist: R7-S5-A9; .

Mark:
I answered this earlier (see Post #38) You are wrong -- and you insist on repeating this as though if you say it enough it will be true. The rule cited existed when the case play was written. It has since been moved to 4-36-1 and 4-36-2a (definition of point of interruption).