POI and Referee Magazine case play
 

This month's RM the final basketball case play involves a double foul during a long pass. Obviously the resumption is from POI. However, they make this statement: A ball that is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player. Since the ball was in flight when the double foul occurred, the point of interruption is considered to b at the location where A1 threw the ball. Team A shall have a throw-in team A's backcourt nearest the A1's location.

My understanding has always been that the throw-in is from the spot OOB nearest where the ball was when the double foul occurred. In the case of a long pass, that might be quite a distance from the thrower.

Am I wrong? Or is this another RM gaffe?

The rule on ball location seems pretty clear. Just like for a person who is airborne. It is where it was until gets where it's going.

If the long pass is still airborne, then the ensuing throw-in would be from the spot closest to where the pass originated. If the pass bounced on the floor before the whistle, then the ensuing throw-in would be from the spot closest to where it bounced.

Can you cite a rule to back up that statement?

Rule 4-36-2(a) says that the POI is the "<i><b>spot nearest to where the ball was located WHEN the interruption occurred.</b></i> That completely contradicts your statement above. You...and the stoopid monkeysat RM.... want to take it to where the ball <b>WAS</b>.

Yes, 4-4-3. The ball IS wherever it last touched a player or the court.

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.

Would this same on a violation? Let's say Team A is in the back court, A1 is the lane in the BC, official's count is at 9 and A1 throws a long airborne pass to someone in the front court. Ball is over the FC when the count hits 10, official has a violation. Are you putting the ball in play closest to where it was in the FC when the violation occurred or are you putting it in play on the baseline in Team B's FC?

Hee-hee-heee!! :D

The ball was still in the backcourt (or technically, "still had backcourt status"), right? That's why you blew the whistle for the violation.

Put the ball in play closest to where the violation occurred. In this case, the violation occurred at the spot where the passer released the ball. It might be near the endline, or it might be near midcourt. It's wherever the passer last touched the ball.

Thanks, Scrappy. Somehow I missed connecting those dots.

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

<u><b>7.5.9 SITUATION A;</b></u> 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.
<b><u>RULING:</u></b> 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 <b>at the spot nearest to where the ball was located when the fouls occurred</b>.

In the current case book, we have:

<b><u>4.19.8 SITUATION E:</u></b> 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.
<b><u>RULING</u></b> 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 <b>the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred</b>. 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 <b>nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred</b>. 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 </b>IS</b> when you blow the whistle, nor where it <b>WAS</b>.

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.

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. :)

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

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.

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

What he said. :D

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.

What he said.:D

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.

And anybody that maybe wants to have a throw-in 70 away from where the ball was when a double foul occurred and call that throw-in spot <i>"the spot nearest to where the ball was located"</i> is frankly not thinking about the intent and purpose of that rule imco.

Imo the rulesmakers want to put the POI at the closest spot to where the ball <b>IS</b> when the interruption occurs....not at the spot of what caused that interruption....and not where the ball <b>WAS</b> before the interruption occurred.

What you think is the mindless raving of a senile mind might actually be what the rulesmakers intended.:)

Seriously!

I never joke.

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.

So we have the rule on the one hand, and your interpretation -- which may be what was intended -- on the other.

As I said, until there is a POE that says differently, I will enforce the rule, which for once is completely unambiguous.

We disagree.

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.

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.

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! :)

Thank you.

Thanks for finding the play and saving me the effort of searching.

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.

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.

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

That's definitive. I was wrong.

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

Deal with it.

That would be me. :D

JR:

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

MTD, Sr.

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).

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.

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

That reminds me, I need to add a goal. ;)

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.

:D

Take it like a man. JR did.

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.

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.

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

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 <b>WAS</b> at the time of the whistle instead of where the ball <b>IS</b> at the time of the whistle defies common sense imo. And apparently I'm not the only one that takes that view.

I know. Hence, me being "astounded". :)

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.

Gee, I think that maybe....just maybe....<b>some</b> 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 <b>almost</b> (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 <b>WASN'T</b> when play was INTERRUPTED makes zero sense to me.

However, it is what it is.

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. :)

Let me assert my firm belief ...
 

Good quote. Is it yours? I can't find it anywhere on the internet.

Is it the same as "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" (Franklin D. Roosevelt)? Maybe your quote may become as famous some day?

I'm glad that's just you. I can't figure out how you could get a 10 second call on a ball passed from the front court to another spot in the front court. But that's just me, though.:D

Try your logic on these:

1) A1 has a throw-in on the endline under their own basket. B1, standing just inbounds guarding the throw-in, tips the ball on the throw-in. The ball goes into A's backcourt, and just <b>before</b> the ball lands and bounces just over the FT line in the lane, a double foul is committed. By rule, the throw-in has to go back to where B1 touched the ball, correct? Throw-in on the endline under A's basket, correct?

2) Exact same play, but the double foul is committed just <b>after</b> the ball bounces just over the FT line in the lane in A's backcourt....now, by rule, you locate the throw-in on the endline under team B's basket on the endline, correct?

Maybe somebody(like Scrappy ShortPants) can explain the logic to me of locating the throw-in at different ends of the court in these almost identical plays.

Did I Just See A Pig Flying ???
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Dated Her Sister In High School ...
 

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.

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.

I Promise That I Won't Use It Except For An Emergency ...
 

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

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

Ah, that's the reason for my qualifier, "if the situation were right." :D
Yup, I'm with you so far.
By rule, yes.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you when it comes to how I'd prefer to see it done. Your way makes more sense, to be honest. To me, though, it's a pretty clear rule when it says "the location of the ball is defined...."

Frankly, I think the committee just didn't care enough about this to add another definition changing the location of the ball for POI purposes.

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

PM what to you? You lost me, Billy. :confused: 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.

She Knew My Aunt's Second Cousin, Once Removed ...
 

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

http://re3.yt-thm-a02.yimg.com/image/25/m2/2035051270

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).

Would It Be In The Personals Section ???
 

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

http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/m1/1930981369

That case play posted on the FED web site clarified the rule.....soooooooo, I'm not questioning that the rule is incorrect. Imo though, the logic used in the case play sureashell is faulty. That case play doesn't reflect the purpose and intent of having a POINT that relates to where the ball actually <b>is</b> when the POI is being used.

The only thing I can figger out is that they maybe let a coupla pointy-haired IAABO bosses onto the FED rules committee by accident.

New And Improved ...
 

Hey? I don't even have a dog in this fight.

And by the way, the B stands for Basketball, not Blind. You won't find an IAABO patch on this guy:

http://re3.yt-thm-a04.yimg.com/image/25/m7/3911878997

Close enough.....

Now I am going to throw out my two cents...

I know we have POI by definition... but ...

What seems incongruent and inconsistent is that a double foul is the only place we dont take the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot of the foul..

I understand the ruling and understand POI but still... just something to make you wonder

The same is also done on simultaneous fouls.

I agree with this, Kelvin (understanding that it's also true of simultaneous fouls). This was actually a big deal when the POI rule came in. It took a long time for some officials to really absorb the fact that you didn't go to the spot of the fouls.

Only in theory ;)

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).

BayStateRef:

You just made my point. A reference to a rule that does not exist, a reference to a rule that does not apply, and a reference to a rule that is off by one (1) article (the correct article being R4-S36-A2a) and the ruling does not follow the correct article (R4-S36-A2a) that states where the throw-in shall be taken.

MTD, Sr.

Hey mtd, sr!!
 

So, uh, what'd you hear from Mary? :cool:

Scrapper:

To be honest, I haven't made the time to email Mary, because of more important family business. But I will get to it somethime this school year.

MTD, Sr.