The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 13, 2008, 07:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,841
Wrong ruling even back then!

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 B1ís basket interference, Team B shall have a throw in from anywhere along the end line. B1ís 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 14, 2008, 12:35am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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 B1ís basket interference, Team B shall have a throw in from anywhere along the end line. B1ís 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?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 14, 2008, 02:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Send a message via AIM to Back In The Saddle Send a message via MSN to Back In The Saddle Send a message via Yahoo to Back In The Saddle
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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?
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming

Last edited by Back In The Saddle; Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:26am.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 14, 2008, 03:33am
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 14, 2008, 08:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,579
[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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 14, 2008, 08:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wrong Way! Wrong Goal? Rick Durkee Basketball 6 Mon Nov 05, 2007 05:57pm
When I'm Wrong, I'm wrong: Interference is better without intent wadeintothem Softball 48 Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:58am
FED DH Ruling largeone59 Baseball 8 Tue Aug 02, 2005 05:47am
Ruling? Scotto Baseball 4 Fri Nov 14, 2003 07:16pm
New Video Clip: touch back or not . NF ruling sm_bbcoach Football 9 Thu Aug 28, 2003 08:16am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1