When "Interps" Expire...

[Freddy]

The "Sticky" on Interpretations which is posited at the head of our discussion board page mentions this one from 2000/01:
SITUATION 14: After a made basket by Team B, A1 has the run of the end line for a throw-in. A1’s throw-in is intentionally kicked by B1. Is Team A awarded a designated spot throw-in or may it again run the end line for the throw-in? RULING: There is no provision to allow Team A to run the end line. After any violation, the ball shall be put in play from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. No exception to this rule is noted. (7-5-2).
This was a question on our state test this year, and casebook 7.5.7 B clearly mentions such a provision, which seems to indicate the 2000/01 "terp" is no longer correct.
My question is this: these NFHS interpretations, are they so set in stone that they merit the top/front/center position of the discussion board? Or are these interps sometimes reversed or modified in subsequent years by clarifications in the rule book or new citations in the casebook?
Eager for any clarification any can provide.

[Back In The Saddle]

Like any rule or case play, a later rules change can invalidate an interp. The interps were added somewhat recently to the forum as a study aid for us. But caveat emptor; no attempt has been made to call out interps based on rules that may have changed.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Freddy

The "Sticky" on Interpretations which is posited at the head of our discussion board page mentions this one from 2000/01:
SITUATION 14: After a made basket by Team B, A1 has the run of the end line for a throw-in. A1’s throw-in is intentionally kicked by B1. Is Team A awarded a designated spot throw-in or may it again run the end line for the throw-in? RULING: There is no provision to allow Team A to run the end line. After any violation, the ball shall be put in play from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. No exception to this rule is noted. (7-5-2).
This was a question on our state test this year, and casebook 7.5.7 B clearly mentions such a provision, which seems to indicate the 2000/01 "terp" is no longer correct.
My question is this: these NFHS interpretations, are they so set in stone that they merit the top/front/center position of the discussion board? Or are these interps sometimes reversed or modified in subsequent years by clarifications in the rule book or new citations in the casebook?
Eager for any clarification any can provide.

They are provided for those to look through and review. In my opinion, it was a great idea and a neat little project for those who researched and dug up the information the NFHS has provided. While they aren't set in stone (as you have pointed out, changes/revisions cause them to be invalid), I think they deserve to be at the top. Good information.


Yes, they are. As you have provided proof of such actions which show in your situation they retain the right to run the endline following the violation (7-5-7b).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Caveat emptor.

How dare you swear at Freddy. I give him credit for giving some thought to an eight year old interpretation. Wait a minute? On Christmas? Eight year old interpretation? On the internet? Again, on Christmas? Back In the Saddle is right. Freddy is a real caveat emptor.

Merry Christmas Back In the Saddle. And, Merry Christmas Freddy, you old caveat emptor.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

No attempt has been made to call out interps based on rules that may have changed.

Sounds like something should be added to the "job jar".

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by tjones1

They are provided for those to look through and review. In my opinion, it was a great idea and a neat little project for those who researched and dug up the information the NFHS has provided. While they aren't set in stone (as you have pointed out, changes/revisions cause them to be invalid), I think they deserve to be at the top. Good information.

Agreed. Kudos to those who put in the work to provide this valuable resource. It has helped me personally. And it deserves to be stickied.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How dare you swear at Freddy. I give him credit for giving some thought to an eight year old interpretation. Wait a minute? On Christmas? Eight year old interpretation? On the internet? Again, on Christmas? Back In the Saddle is right. Freddy is a real caveat emptor.

Merry Christmas Back In the Saddle. And, Merry Christmas Freddy, you old caveat emptor.

I figure if I use words that pre-date soap, my mother can't wash my mouth out with it.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sounds like something should be added to the "job jar".

Probably a good idea.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I figure if I use words that pre-date soap, my mother can't wash my mouth out with it.

Been there. Tasted that. That's probably why today, I seldom, if ever, use the "F" and "B" words, separately, or, as in my case 50 years ago, together in the same phrase.

Thanks Mom.