Unannounced change (from last year)

[Scrapper1]

Maybe I missed the discussion of this. The definition of the Resumption of Play Procedure was changed in last year's book. I didn't notice it until reading the definition just tonight. So I went back to last year's book and it was the same; but in the '06-'07 book, it's different. In the '06-'07 book, it's "used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play following a time-out or intermission. . ."

In the '07-'08 book, it says that it's "used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available or following a time-out or intermission. . ."

This is a very big change!! Now, we can use the RPP for any throw-in, instead of only after time-outs. I think a lot of people did this anyway, but now it's the rule.

Did everybody but me know about this?

[Back In The Saddle]

The RPP only codified what was a widespread (if seldom required) practice. I agree that "a lot of people did this anyway" and did it without the need for specific rule backing. :shrug:

But to answer your specific question, yes. Everybody but you.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Maybe I missed the discussion of this. The definition of the Resumption of Play Procedure was changed in last year's book. I didn't notice it until reading the definition just tonight. So I went back to last year's book and it was the same; but in the '06-'07 book, it's different. In the '06-'07 book, it's "used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play following a time-out or intermission. . ."

In the '07-'08 book, it says that it's "used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available or following a time-out or intermission. . ."

This is a very big change!! Now, we can use the RPP for any throw-in, instead of only after time-outs. I think a lot of people did this anyway, but now it's the rule.

Did everybody but me know about this?

It's not really a change. It's an editorial revision to align the rule with a standard practice that's been in the case book for years.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It's not really a change.

Disagree completely. It's a huge change. It changes the penalty for delaying a throw-in from a technical foul to a violation in nearly all cases. That's a change. Just like changing the swinging of elbows. It's the exact same change. The elbow rule was done as a "rule change", while the delay rule was done as an "editorial revision". But significantly changing a penalty is not simply a revision. The fact that they changed it to reflect widespread practice doesn't alter the fact that does, in fact, change the rule.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Disagree completely. It's a huge change. It changes the penalty for delaying a throw-in from a technical foul to a violation in nearly all cases. That's a change. Just like changing the swinging of elbows. It's the exact same change. The elbow rule was done as a "rule change", while the delay rule was done as an "editorial revision". But significantly changing a penalty is not simply a revision. The fact that they changed it to reflect widespread practice doesn't alter the fact that does, in fact, change the rule.

How is it different from this case play that's been in the Case Book for years?

7.5.2 SITUATION A: Following a violation, the throw-in spot has been properly designated and the covering official has waited a reasonable amount of time for Team A to provide a thrower. What does the official do now?
RULING: The official shall place the ball on the floor at the spot and begin the five-second throw-in count. Team A thrower must release the ball on a throw-in or request time-out before the five-second count is reached. (2-9-3)

2-9-3
If the throw-in team does not make a player available, the official shall place the ball on the floor. The official shall hand or bounce the ball to the thrower for a throw-in unless the throw-in is from outside an end line following a successful goal.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How is it different from this case play that's been in the Case Book for years?

I don't know. I do know that it's substantially different from a rule that's been in Definitions for years.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't know. I do know that it's substantially different from a rule that's been in Definitions for years.

It's no different that 2-9-3 or 7.5.1. They're just now defining those two references as RPP. I've always placed the ball on the floor in these situations based on those references; never called a technical.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How is it different from this case play that's been in the Case Book for years?

7.5.2 SITUATION A:

NOte that this was 7.5.1B last year and is 7.5.1C this year.

2-9-3
If the throw-in team does not make a player available, the official shall place the ball on the floor. The official shall hand or bounce the ball to the thrower for a throw-in unless the throw-in is from outside an end line following a successful goal.

Moved to 4-38 (and the reference in the case changed) last year.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Unannounced change (from last year)

Why do you say this was unannounced?

2007-08 MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES

3-4-6b New: Implementation date reached requiring the home team to wear white jerseys. The note will be removed and a new sub-article will be added stating this requirement.

3-5-2 & New d: Added that guards, casts, braces and compression sleeves must be worn for medical reasons.

3-5-3d: Clarified that hard items worn on the head, such as barrettes and bobby pins, are prohibited.

4-38: Clarified when the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect.

4-40-2d: Added to the definition of a legal screen that the screener must stay within his/her vertical plane with a stance approximately shoulder width apart.

7-5-2 thru 7-5-11: Articles reordered for better understanding and application.

10-3-3: Clarified that a technical foul shall be called when a player purposely and/or deceitfully delays his/her return to the court after legally being out of bounds.

10-6: Section reorganized for better understanding and application.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why do you say this was unannounced?

2007-08 MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES

4-38: Clarified when the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect.

Because I'm an idiot, apparently. I don't often pay much attention to the editorial changes, and I guess I need to do more of it. This is not the first time that there's been a significant change to a rule made through "editorial" processes. I can't say that I like it at all.

[Coach Bill]

What is the Resumption-of-Play Procedure?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

What is the Resumption-of-Play Procedure?

It's when the official places the ball on the floor and begins the 5-second throw-in count (or the 10-second free throw count). It's done to prevent teams from delaying. It used to be that it was only used following a time-out, to get the teams out of the huddle faster. At any other time (loosely speaking), we were to immediately assess a technical foul for delaying the game if the team didn't supply a thrower-in in a timely manner. Now, the rule tells us to use the RPP for ANY throw-in. Makes more sense to me; I just didn't realize it had changed.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

At any other time (loosely speaking), we were to immediately assess a technical foul for delaying the game if the team didn't supply a thrower-in in a timely manner.

Actually, that's not quite true. I know for sure that up until last year, there was a provision in there somewhere that on a normal throw-in (not after a time-out or intermission), if a thrower is not supplied in a timely manner, you are to put the ball down and count to five. It's just not NAMED as the RPP. I missed a question on the test a couple of years ago, because I thought that if it's the same procedure it should be the same thing even if it's not in the same section of the rule book. Silly me.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Because I'm an idiot, apparently.

Try cutting back on the "meds."

[riverfalls57]

I've had an increasing number of players who remain inbounds to set up their play and/or recieve instructions from their coach before stepping back out of bounds to take the ball from me. In this situation I've usually said something like "We're ready #12", or "Here we go #12" and the player has stepped back and taken the ball for the throw in. On a few occasions however, the player has seemed to ignore my request so I have put the ball down and started my count. It seems to me that some coaches must be instructing their players to try to get some more time to set up by standing inbounds by the official. Has anyone else had this happen to them? Just curious.