2008-2009 Interps

[bob jenkins]

FED has issued the interps for this year: http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/10/2008..._rules_in.aspx

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I just read Situation 5, and boy let me tell you, boys' games are going to be more difficult to officiate than ever this year.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I just read Situation 5, and boy let me tell you, boys' games are going to be more difficult to officiate than ever this year.

MTD, Sr.

Lots of dreds and cornrows around here, so this situation is not out the realm of possibilities.

[Scrapper1]

None of these is really all that interesting this year.

[Coach Bill]

SITUATION 7: While the ball is at the disposal of A1 for a free throw, B1, along the lane line, steps out of the lane space. The official displays the appropriate delay signal. Five seconds later, A2, along the lane line, steps into the lane followed by A1 releasing the free throw. The ball enters the basket. RULING: A2's violation followed B1's; therefore, the second violation is ignored and the try is successful. COMMENT: The penalty only addresses one violation being followed by the other. There is no timeframe associated with "followed by" in the rule; therefore, the second violation is ignored. (9-1-3d Penalty 4a)


Does this only apply to this particular instance? What if A2 did not enter the lane prior to the free throw, but A1 shot an airball? I think it's been said on here that you don't ignore the second violation in this case, and you go to the possession arrow (if it's one-and-one).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Lots of dreds and cornrows around here, so this situation is not out the realm of possibilities.

This is a common thing around here too.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

SITUATION 7: ...

Does this only apply to this particular instance? What if A2 did not enter the lane prior to the free throw, but A1 shot an airball? I think it's been said on here that you don't ignore the second violation in this case, and you go to the possession arrow (if it's one-and-one).

Does not apply. First-one-only applies only to violations by players along the lane, not the shooter and not the players not on the lane.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Does this only apply to this particular instance? What if A2 did not enter the lane prior to the free throw, but A1 shot an airball? I think it's been said on here that you don't ignore the second violation in this case, and you go to the possession arrow (if it's one-and-one).

I had this exact scenario (for the first time ever) just last weekend. And we went to the arrow.

Unfortunately the penalties section for free throws is kind of long. But here's the section relevant to the case:

...
4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:
a. If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).
b. If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3).
c. If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.
d. If a fake by an opponent causes the free thrower or a teammate of the free thrower to violate, only the fake is penalized.

[Back In The Saddle]

I seem to recall we've talked about number 8 many times, because some officials (and assigners/interpretors) didn't like the idea that the 10 count starts as soon as the ball hits in back court. So, not that we needed it, but we've got an interp to put to rest any arguments to the contrary.

[Back In The Saddle]

How many would consider taking the approach that interp number 9 discusses: "The referee is also within his/her authority to assess a team technical foul for unsporting behavior on the spectator."?

I kind of like that it assigns responsibility for the incident beyond just the player. And I like that it results in no throws. But it seems kinda far out there for my liking.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

How many would consider taking the approach that interp number 9 discusses: "The referee is also within his/her authority to assess a team technical foul for unsporting behavior on the spectator."?

I kind of like that it assigns responsibility for the incident beyond just the player. And I like that it results in no throws. But it seems kinda far out there for my liking.

Haven't we always had that option to assess the T for spectator and "team followers" behavior? From what I remember though, it would almost have to be one of those "once-in-a-lifetime" situations to penalize a team for fan actions. Perhaps this interp is just pointing out we still have that option, even though it is seldom used.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Haven't we always had that option to assess the T for spectator and "team followers" behavior? From what I remember though, it would almost have to be one of those "once-in-a-lifetime" situations to penalize a team for fan actions. Perhaps this interp is just pointing out we still have that option, even though it is seldom used.

Yes the rules do allow for you to give a T to a spectator of a team follower. But it is also suggested that this is a last resort and something you should use game management to handle.

Peace

[ccso989]

does anyone know where to get the anwsers for 08-09 part 1

[JRutledge]

Yes.

Peace

[ccso989]

where at, any help would be great thanks.