NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You think it will make a difference? They haven't corrected the backcourt mistake yet and it has been, what...2 years?

Late to the party, what mistake was that?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Camron,

Please contact me. We have been using assignbyweb and are looking for a replacement.

thanks

Mulk

PM Sent.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Late to the party, what mistake was that?

See:

• 2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.
• http://forum.officiating.com/basketball/55532-one.html
• New interps Sitch # 10

The erroneous ruling...

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)


As we all know, it is not a violation for team A to cause the ball to have BC status...never has been. If it were, it would be an immediate violation when A loses control of the ball and it goes into the backcourt. But it is not. It's all about who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gains BC status and the first to touch AFTER it gains BC status.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What's the penalty for kicking the ball? A throw-in.

What's the penalty for breaking the plane? A warning (and continue with the current throw-in).

That's why there's a different ruling in the two case plays.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

The "kicked ball" ruling is the same as B fouling during the throw-in. The AP throw-in hadn't ended, so the arrow will stay the same.

The "B reaches through the plane" is the same as an inadvertant whistle during the throw-in. Once we resume, we resume with the original AP throw-in, and the arrow changes once that is ended.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, because it's not incorrect.

MTD is correct. A defender breaking the boundary plane prior to the release of the throw-in pass is a VIOLATION. The team is given a delay of game warning IN ADDITION TO this violation. The new throw-in is NOT the same. If this throw-in had been an AP throw-in, it now no longer is. If it were an end line throw-in, then the offended team does NOT lose the right to run due to 7-5-7b.

I commented on this and the other 2009-10 interps in another thread. Here is what I posted on #3.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My comments are in red.
...
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!

[BktBallRef]

I'll stick with Bob and the NFHS. You and MTD were made for each other, diatribes and all.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I'll stick with Bob and the NFHS. You and MTD were made for each other, diatribes and all.

I'll stick with the NFHS RULES BOOK, not some unidentified interpretation writer whose words only appear on the NFHS website and are not seen by most officials anyway.

It is unfortunate that you don't believe that this is a violation. It says so right there in the Rules Book. It also states that the penalty is another throw-in from the original spot.


9-2-10. . . The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her
person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the
ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds
area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may
legally touch or grasp the ball.
PENALTIES: (Art. 10)
1. The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s)...

PENALTY: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation or technical
foul occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a
throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

[Back In The Saddle]

The NFHS is the rules making body. If they say black is white, then black is white (at least in games played strictly under their rules). They may be inconsistent, but they are not wrong.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The NFHS is the rules making body. If they say black is white, then black is white (at least in games played strictly under their rules). They may be inconsistent, but they are not wrong.

I agree with Snaqs.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When faced with an interp that contradicts a rule, I think it's safe to call it by the rule.

[Daryl H. Long]

My interp is consistent with rules also. Any B violation causes a new throw in. I for one do not blindly follow NF in such blatantly wrong interpretations.

For those of you who believe the NF ruling I need you to clarify a few points.

1. There are a number of violations that B could commit before an AP throwin ends. Which ones result in a new throw in awarded to team A?

2. WHAT criteria Has the NF has provided to determine whether to award a new throw in or not?

3. What makes one violation more egregious than another that would allow team A to be awarded a new throw in in one case and not a new Throw in given another violation?

All interpretations need to be consistent by Rule.

Therefore:
ALL violations of throw in by A on AP throw in also cause loss of arrow. Award new throw in to Team B.
ALL violations of throw in by B on AP throw in also allow A to retain arrow. Award new throw in to Team A.