Wrong ruling even back then!

[Nevadaref]

2001-02 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 18: A1 is driving towards his/her basket with B1 following. A1 goes up for a lay-up. Bl goes up as well and commits basketball interference. After the basket interference, but before either player returns to the floor, B1 also fouls airborne shooter A1.
RULING: The basket interference causes the ball to become dead immediately. Team A is awarded two points for B1’s basket interference, Team B shall have a throw in from anywhere along the end line. B1’s foul is ignored unless deemed unsporting or flagrant. (9-11; 6-7-9)

I just checked the 2001-02 NFHS Rules Book and confirmed that 4-1-1,2 (Airborne Shooter) and 4-19-1 (Personal Foul) are exactly as they are today in the 2008-09 book.

Unfortunately, the NFHS got this one wrong as the foul is clearly committed against an airborne shooter.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2001-02 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 18: A1 is driving towards his/her basket with B1 following. A1 goes up for a lay-up. Bl goes up as well and commits basketball interference. After the basket interference, but before either player returns to the floor, B1 also fouls airborne shooter A1.
RULING: The basket interference causes the ball to become dead immediately. Team A is awarded two points for B1’s basket interference, Team B shall have a throw in from anywhere along the end line. B1’s foul is ignored unless deemed unsporting or flagrant. (9-11; 6-7-9)

I just checked the 2001-02 NFHS Rules Book and confirmed that 4-1-1,2 (Airborne Shooter) and 4-19-1 (Personal Foul) are exactly as they are today in the 2008-09 book.

Unfortunately, the NFHS got this one wrong as the foul is clearly committed against an airborne shooter.

Pardon my ignorance. What's wrong with it?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Pardon my ignorance. What's wrong with it?

A foul committed against an airborne shooter is not ignored just because the ball is dead.

NFHS 4-19-1 NOTE: Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter.

Given that, why is the foul against the airborne shooter ignored in this case?

[just another ref]

Yep, that's it. Couldn't put my finger on it. I have no excuse. This is a play that I have never seen, a foul and a goaltend/BI both committed by the same player, so for some reason I did not visualize it correctly. Wait a minute, I guess I do have an excuse, after all.

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=Nevadaref;550451 Unfortunately, the NFHS got this one wrong as the foul is clearly committed against an airborne shooter.[/QUOTE]

According to my notes, this interp was corrected on the FED website a few days after it was posted.

I'll edit the Interps thread to make that point.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

According to my notes, this interp was corrected on the FED website a few days after it was posted.

I'll edit the Interps thread to make that point.

Thanks for the follow-up, Bob.

Glad they noticed it, or someone else noticed it for them, and fixed it. It caught my eye right away when I read it.