2009 - 2010 Interp

[bob jenkins]

FED has issued the current year interps. I posted them on the "Interps Archive: thread, but then closed the thread so any discussion would take place here (thus keeping the archive just for the interps themselves).

My comments:

1) The use of the word "inbound status" in the ruling seems wrong to me, but I agree with the ruling.

8) This is the same as new case play 2.10.1D

9) This is the same as new case play 2.10.1E

10) This is the same as new case play 2.10.4B

11) Hmm... we've discussed this one before.

[mbyron]

Bob: I would suggest also making the interps archive sticky, so that it doesn't "sink" after a few days.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

11) Hmm... we've discussed this one before.

Originally Posted by Interp #11

"...the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed."

So, am I reading this right, are they revising the theory of "definite knowledge"?

I certainly understand there are no "do-overs", and in this sitch once the TI has ended, we can't go back. We would put the ball in play by a spot TI closest to where the ball was at the time of the official's whistle. Ideally the official would also put the correct time back on the clock due to definite knowledge (perhaps due to a continuation of the 5-sec. throw-in count). But are they also saying that we can "guess" a few tenths of a second, because we "must make some allowance for the touching by A1"?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, am I reading this right, are they revising the theory of "definite knowledge"?

I certainly understand there are no "do-overs", and in this sitch once the TI has ended, we can't go back. We would put the ball in play by a spot TI closest to where the ball was at the time of the official's whistle. Ideally the official would also put the correct time back on the clock due to definite knowledge (perhaps due to a continuation of the 5-sec. throw-in count). But are they also saying that we can "guess" a few tenths of a second, because we "must make some allowance for the touching by A1"?

It sure seems like that's what they're saying. It's not entirely unprecedented. There is the 3/10th of a second rule for catch and shoot. I suppose if I had to subtract some time "for the touching by A1" I'd probably take 3/10th off if A1 caught it cleanly. Anyone have another suggestion?

[Back In The Saddle]

In 1, why is this a common foul and not an intentional? It's an automatic intentional if the defender reaches through and fouls the thrower. Why the difference in penalty?

[tjones1]

I guess I don't understand #10. To me, it seems like you are penalizing Team A for your mistake if it's caught within the time frame. Therefore, they must re-shoot. Granted, they may gain from it if they missed the shots.

However, if it's not caught within the time frame, it's treated as if they were shot at the correct basket.

[Back In The Saddle]

It has been said here before (by people lots smarter than me) that the CE rule isn't meant to be "fair". It's written such that everybody has a vested interest in preventing the error. In #10 A's interest includes not having to shoot the FT twice and possibly losing points. B's interest includes not giving A a second "bite at the apple" by re-shooting. And, as always, the officials' interest includes losing a pound of flesh needed for the ride home.

[BktBallRef]

Bob, may I suggest you add the Interps to the OP in this thread, so we don't have to flip back and forth between threads to post comments?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, am I reading this right, are they revising the theory of "definite knowledge"?

I certainly understand there are no "do-overs", and in this sitch once the TI has ended, we can't go back.

Consider 10.1.8:

e. put "consumed" time back on the clock.

What are the chances of anyone having definite knowledge of the amount of consumed time?

[Nevadaref]

My comments are in red.

SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)
Totally bogus ruling. It is incorrect about the inbound/out of bound status of the thrower. The thrower maintains out of bounds status throughout the entire play. Furthermore, it fails to adhere to the principle expressed in 7.1.1 Situation A. If an inbounds player can touch someone who is out of bounds without violating, then an out of bounds player should also be allowed to touch an inbounds player without violating. The NFHS really screwed this one.


SITUATION 2: Team A scores a goal; while the ball is dead, Team A requests and is granted a time-out. After the time-out, the official mistakenly awards the ball to Team A. A1 passes the ball to A2, who scores. The mistake is recognized before the ball is at the disposal of Team B after the score. RULING: Once A2 legally touched A1’s throw-in pass after the time-out, the throw-in ended and the mistake cannot be corrected. This is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (4-42-5; 7-5-7)
Totally unnecessary. We already know this and have a casebook play on it, namely 7.5.2 Situation A.

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in by Team A, B1 breaks the plane of the boundary line. The official stops play. RULING: Team B is issued a warning for breaking the throw-in plane. Since the original alternating-possession throw-in had not ended, the ball is again awarded to Team A and remains an alternating-possession throw-in. Any type of further delay by Team B results in a team technical foul. (4-42-5; 4-47-1; 6-4-4; 7-6-4; 10-1-5c)
Totally wrong. The new throw-in following the violation by B1 for breaking the plane is not an AP throw-in. The NFHS decided this two years ago when clarifying when a throw-in ends, see 4.42.5. Amazingly, the writer of this Interp even states that the "throw-in had not ended," yet kicks the ruling.
Who is writing this stuff? Bozo the Clown!

SITUATION 4: A1 is injured and bench personnel are beckoned onto the court. Once A1 has been removed from the court, the official notifies the Team A coach that a replacement is required. The official then instructs the timer to begin the 20-second replacement interval because a substitute is not made available immediately. Team A’s head coach then requests a time-out to keep A1 in the game. RULING: Incorrect procedure. The time-out request must be made when the official informs the coach that a replacement is required. Once the 20-second interval has begun and A1’s replacement is pending, a time-out shall not be granted. Once A1 is replaced by a substitute, Team A may request and be granted a time-out, if desired. (2-12-5 Note; 3-3-6; 5-8-3b)
Correct. It's nice to have one right interpretation in this.

SITUATION 5: During a dead ball, an official notices that A1 is bleeding. The official notifies the Team A coach that a replacement is required. The official then instructs the timer to begin the 20-second replacement interval because a substitute is not made available immediately. Team A’s head coach then requests a time-out to keep A1 in the game. RULING: Incorrect procedure. The time-out request must be made when the official informs the coach that a replacement is required. Once the 20-second interval has begun and A1’s replacement is pending, a time-out shall not be granted. Once A1 is replaced by a substitute, Team A may request and be granted a time-out, if desired. (2-12-5; 3-3-7; 5-8-3b)
Same as #4, so no extra point for providing the same correct ruling twice.

SITUATION 6: During a dead ball, an official notices that A1 and B1 are both bleeding. The official notifies both the Team A coach and the Team B coach that a replacement is required for A1 and B1, respectively. The Team A coach requests a time-out to keep A1 in the game. Team B elects to enter a substitute for B1. The official then instructs the timer to begin the 20-second replacement interval for B1 because a substitute is not made available immediately. RULING: Correct procedure. A substitute must enter the game for B1 prior to the official granting the time-out for Team A. A1 must be ready to play by the end of the time-out. (2-12-5; 3-3-7; 5-8-3b)
We know. 3.3.7 Situation C. Why does the author of this year's Interps feel the need to rewrite case plays which already exist?

SITUATION 7: A1 is directed to leave the game because his/her jersey is not tucked into the game pants. The official notifies the Team A coach that a replacement is required. The official then instructs the timer to begin the 20-second replacement interval because a substitute is not made available immediately. Team A’s head coach then requests a time-out to keep A1 in the game. RULING: Team A’s time-out request may only be granted after A1 is replaced by a substitute. A time-out is not permitted to keep a player in the game who has been directed to leave for not wearing his/her uniform properly. Once A1 is replaced by a substitute, Team A may request and be granted a time-out, if desired. (2-12-5; 3-3-5; 5-8-3b)
Correct ruling, and one which I and others have posted numerous times on this forum. The time-out to keep a player in the game provision is only for blood or injury, not uniform violations.

SITUATION 8: A1 is fouled. Team A is awarded the ball out of bounds. The foul was Team B’s seventh team foul and A1 should have been awarded a one-and-one bonus. Team A scores on the ensuing throw-in. As the ball passes through the net, the officials are informed of the error. RULING: The error is discovered within the correctable-error timeframe. Count the goal by A; A1 will be awarded the bonus with no players along the lane lines. There has been a change of possession and the point of interruption is the goal by Team A; therefore, Team B will be awarded a throw-in anywhere along the end line. (2-10-1a; 2-10-5)
Did we really need an Interp and a new case play (2.10.1 Sit D) to tell us this? We can read the rule.

SITUATION 9: A1 has been given the ball for a throw-in when A2 commits a foul against B2. B1 is awarded the ball for a throw-in and commits a throw-in violation by touching a foot inbounds before releasing the throw-in pass. The ball is at A1’s disposal for the subsequent throw-in when the officials are informed that A2’s foul was Team A’s seventh team foul. RULING: The clock had not started and the error is discovered within the correctable-error timeframe. B2 is awarded the bonus with no players along the lane lines. The point of interruption is the throw-in for Team A. (2-10-1a; 2-10-6)
Yeah, but again, do they think that we can't read the rule and apply it correctly?

SITUATION 10: The officials erroneously permit A1 to shoot technical foul free throws at Team B’s basket; A1 makes both free throws. When the error is discovered, the timeframe for the correctable error (a) has not passed; or (b) has passed. RULING: In (a), cancel the successful free throws by A1 and administer the free throws again at the correct basket. In (b), the free throws by A1 shall not be canceled and count toward Team A’s point total. (2-10-4)
Same comment as #9. I'll only add that the crew must buy the first round for all fellow officials who come to the local bar that night.

SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)
We've discussed such a play many times, here's one thread from way back in 2002: Clock starts too soon
Here's another one from 2005:
HS: Re-do throw in
And here's the latest one, which likely spurred this Interp, so I will note that my comments in the thread were 100% correct: Timer Makes a Mistake

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Totally bogus ruling. Totally unnecessary. Totally wrong. Who is writing this stuff? Bozo the Clown! Why does the author of this year's Interps feel the need to rewrite case plays which already exist? Do they think that we can't read the rule and apply it correctly?

Come on Nevadaref. Tell us what you really think. Don't hold back anything. You'll feel better afterward. I promise.

(Catharsis: the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions; discharge of pent-up emotions so as to result in the alleviation of symptoms or the permanent relief of the condition; a release of emotional tension, as after an overwhelming experience, that restores or refreshes the spirit; a technique used to relieve tension and anxiety by bringing repressed feelings and fears to consciousness; an experience of emotional release and purification. In psychoanalysis, catharsis is the release of tension and anxiety that results from bringing repressed feelings and memories into consciousness.)