NFHS 2008-09 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation D

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

This is going to be a very long post, so I apologize in advance; in the interest of full disclosure I am a member of IAABO and a member of its Rules Examination Committee and with that in mind lets look at Play No. 1 of the IAABO 2008-09 Refresher Exam.

IAABO 2008-09 Refresher Exam Play No. 1:

A1 is fouled. The Scorer informs the Official that it is the 10th foul on
Team B. The first free throw is unsuccessful. The second free throw is
successful. When B1 has the ball for the throw-in, the Scorer informs the
Official that Team B has only comitted nine (9) team fouls. The Official
cancels the last free throw and resumes play with the Alternating'
Possession procedure. Is the Official correct? RULING: No; R2-S10-A1b
and R2-S10-A6.

Questions for the IAABO 2008-09 Refresher Exam were submitted to the Rules Examination Committe Chairman by the end of April 2008, long before the NFHS 2008-09 Casebook was published, therefore, the above Ruling is consistent with:

NFHS 2007-08 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation C(d):

A1 is fouled prior to the bonus, but erroneously A1 is awarded a one-and-
one. The error is discovered after B1 has the ball for a throw-in after
both attempts are successful. RULING: The successful free throw(s) are
canceled and play continues with a throw-in by B as B had the ball when
the game was interrupted for correction.

The 2007-08 Casebook Play was not a new or revised Play and there were no rules were cited for the Ruling.


NFHS 2008-09 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation D:

A1 is fouled. The scorer informs the official that Team B has committed
ten team fouls and that the two-free-throw penalty is in effect. The
official administers the free throw and states and indicates "two" throws.
The first free throw is unsuccessful and the second is successful. B1 has
the ball out of bounds for the throw-in. The scorer informs the official
that there were only nine team fouls on Team B and that the penalty
should have been one and one. RULING: The error is discovered within
the correctable error timeframe, and shall be corrected. The second free
throw is canceled and play is resumed at the point of interruption.
Since “no goal” has been scored, play is resumed with an alternating-
possession throw-in at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when
the stoppage occurred. (R2-S10-A1b; R2-S10-A6; R4-S36-A2c)

The 2008-09 Casebook Play is a new/revised play.


One can see that IAABO 2008-09 Refresher Exam Play No. 1, NFHS 2007-08 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation C(d), and NFHS 2008-09 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation D and the Rulings for first two plays are the same but the Ruling for the third is not the same as the first two.


It appears that the change in the Rulings hinges upon two things: (1) The word "possession." and (2) The phrase "no goal."

I can attest that for the last forty (40) to 45 years their have been definitions for player control and team control in the rules as written by the National Basketball Comm. of the United States and Canada (the rules committee the begat the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees) and the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees. There has never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) been a definition of “possession” either player or team. BUT the word “possession” has been used in the Rules and Casebooks for years. While the word “possession” has never been defined, one will see that it is substituted for the word “control” when the status for the ball does not allow for player or team control to exist.

The phrase "no goal" can only be tied to NFHS R4-S36-A2c, but I am not sure how.

Furthermore, NFHS R2-S10-A1b, R2-S10-A6, R4-S36-A2c have not changed from 2006-07 to 2007-08 to 2008-09.

Now for the $64,000 question to my esteem colleagues: What has changed between 2007-08 and 2008-09 to change the Ruling in this situation?

Ladies and germs (I am sorry, I meant gentlemen) let the fun begin.

MTD, Sr.


P.S.: NFHS 2007-08 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation C(d) RULING says that the Point of Interruption (POI) is Team B's throw-in and therefore play is resumed with Team B getting the ball for a Designated Spot Throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was when the game was stopped for the Correctable Error. NFHS 2008-09 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation D RULING says that play is resumed with an Alternating Possession throw-in because "no goal" was scored per R4-S36-A2c and best I can figure.

[Adam]

I'm confused. What was the correct ruling before?

[jdw3018]

Mark,

I haven't searched for it, but there was a thread about this new case play earlier. We also discussed it in length at some of my pre-season meetings here. I don't know that there was consensus, but several people agreed that this just has to be a mistake.

Once the ball has become live (B has the ball for the throw-in) then that qualifies as subsequent action after the correctable error, and therefore the throw-in should be the POI for resuming play. I've read through everything so many times I just can't come up with a way that A/P would be the correct way to resume.

The real question is whether there's a difference in whether the throw-in has ended or not (for purposes of how to resume play) and I see no rules evidence that there is.

So, a long, rambling answer to a long not-rambling question is: Nothing has changed, other than the case play.

[Scrapper1]

Here's the thread where we talked about this previously:

Unmerited free throw POI

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I guess I wasn't paying much attention to some of the threads at the beginning of November, but of course that thread bookended my birthday so I was out partying like it was 1999. But it appears that the consensus is that the NFHS "screwd the pooch", as our umpiring brethern say, once again.

MTD, Sr.