NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fifth: Has anybody contacted Mary Struckhoff yet about the incorrect phrase in the Rules Interpretation.

No, because it's not incorrect.

[BktBallRef]

Billy, no idea who told you all this crap you post is funny.

But it ain't. Why not just stick basketball instead of all this stupid stuff?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why not just stick basketball instead of all this stupid stuff?

Sorry. Thanks for reining me in. I may have crossed a line by posting an old photo of someone, even if that someone is a public figure in the world of officiating, thus the availability of an internet photo. Just because a photo is on the internet doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to post on this Forum. I wouldn't like it if a Forum member posted an old photo of me. Hindsight is always 20/20. I will delete as much as I can. Hopefully Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will delete his reply. Note: For the record, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. does have her email address.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sorry. Thanks for reining me in. I may have crossed a line by posting an old photo of someone, even if that someone is a public figure in the world of officiating, thus the availability of an internet photo. Just because a photo is on the internet doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to post on this Forum. I wouldn't like it if a Forum member posted an old photo of me. Hindsight is always 20/20. I will delete as much as I can. Hopefully Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will delete his reply. Note: For the record, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. does have her email address.

It has nothing to do with the appropriatenesss of posting a photo.

[nine01c]

I think the two plays are completely different (situations) from each other and that the rulings in each are correct.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It has nothing to do with the appropriatenesss of posting a photo.

Bob and Tony:

My response was a poor attempt at humor. I am sure you will agree with me that sports officials are blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other. I will delete my response.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Bob and Tony:

My response was a poor attempt at humor. I am sure you will agree with me that sports officials are blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other. I will delete my response.

MTD, Sr.

I don't want to speak for Tony, but I don't think your response was the cause of his consternation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The RULING in the Rules Interpretation is incorrect because:

1) R9-S2-A10 says: "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."

2) R9-S2, Penalty says: "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."

3) R9-S2-A10, Penalty 1 says: "The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one delay warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable."

One sees that the only throw-in specifically mentioned in the Penalty sections of R9-S2 refers to a throw-in, in which the thrower is the right to move along the end line.

I believe that everybody is in agreement that the violation in the two plays being discussed causes the ball to be dead and that the original throw-in the two plays did not end because of the violation. BUT, because the throw-in never ended, the RULING in Casebook Play 4.42.5 governs. Team A receives the ball for a throw-in due to the violation by Team B and retains the AP Arrow for the next AP Throw-in situation.

MTD, Sr.