Unannounced change (from last year)
 

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?

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. :D

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.

Why do you say this was unannounced? :confused:



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, yeah. You got me. Although I did (intentionally) hedge my bet by saying "loosely speaking". :)

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.

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.

I have never called a technical on this play and I have not used the put the ball down technique in years... Good game management prevents the need for this imo...

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


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

If by "good game management" you mean that you allow teams extra time to get out of their timeout huddle so that you don't have to put the ball on the floor, I would question your "game management".

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.

Unfortunately, kids don't always respond. At some point, I'm no longer going to prod them. If they ignore me, I tweet, count to two, tweet and put it on the floor.

I'm using the 2006 ARS books that are stored on my work desktop. That's why my references are pre-2007. But I am assuming they are the same references, correct?

Reading is fundamental... I never said I allow extra time to get out of their huddle...

Question all you like but it works... I work strictly 3 man crews. When you have one offiicial at each huddle at the warning horn and one "in" the huddle at the final buzzer, the teams come out almost always without a problem. If they don't I have a talk with the coach suggesting that the ball will be placed on the floor and this has always solved the problem. When the officials are right there clapping and verbalizing the kids come out... Good game management.

It works... like I said... I have not had to put the ball down in years and I don't have to wait or beg/repeatedly blow my whistle.

In fact, around here officials who put the ball down are looked at as those who are not capable of keeping the game moving through effective game mangement practices.

Around here those officials are known as those who ARE capable of keeping the game moving through effective RULE BOOK practices. :rolleyes:

Ahh yes... but if you manage the situation and pre game handling these things you never have to get to the "rule" of putting the ball on the floor.

I can tell by your :rolleyes: smiley that this concept is lost on you so I will not waste anymore bandwidth explaining it to you.

I think this is regional. In some areas, the coaches have been trained to get out quickly. Others, they linger as long as they're allowed to. My most recent area, I didn't put the ball down in the two years I worked there. It didn't take a whole lot of GM on my part, either.
Mentioned it to coaches in the pre-game (Per instructions from the state) and the coaches were all on board.

I think this might work better with 3-man mechanics than 2-man mechanics as well. It's more difficult with 2-man mechanics to linger around one or both team's huddles, especially when one of you is standing at the throw-in spot. I won't walk across the court to remind a team that they need to break up the huddle. I will put the ball on the floor and once is usually enough to get the message across.

:D

Try cutting back on the "meds." ;)

So you feel that anyone who puts the ball on the floor and begins counting, just as described in the rule and case book, is incapable of effectively managing the game? It's disappointing that you would assume that.

But I've got news for you. Placing the ball on the floor can also be a very effective game management practice. In fact, it's advocated by my state association, which has established a specific procedure for doing so.

Concur. My experience is also mostly 2-man, sub-varsity and while rare, putting the ball down on an oft occasion works for me.

Tony....

With all due respect for you, If that is what your state association wants you to do, by all means do it. That is not what is wanted around my parts at all and we are instructed to avoid using this rule if at all possible. Again, the game moves along and it really is not an issue around here. Maybe its a regional thing where teams have problems getting out of huddles but around here, when the final horn blows the teams come out ready to play.

Its not babysitting or anything else... you hit the whistle, say final horn let's go and they come on out. I have not had to use this "rule" in years...

Great! But don't assume others incapable just because they use a tool provide by the NFHS. :)