The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3 (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/55565-nfhs-2009-10-basketball-rules-interpretations-situation-3-a.html)

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Nov 27, 2009 02:51am

NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3
 
1) Belated Happy Turkey Day everybody.


2) I apologize in advance if this Interpretation has already been discussed but I have been away from basketball for the last couple of months. I did not even attend the IAABO Fall Interpreters' Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, this past September 2009.


3) Rules Interpretation 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 alternation-possession throw-in had not ended, the ball is 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. (R4-S42-A5; R4-S47-A1; R6-S4-A4; R7-S6-A4; R10-S1-A5c)

First: R9-S2-A10 should also be included in the rules that are referenced.

Second: See NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Casebook Play 4.42.5, which is:

SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in.
A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking
violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the throw-in was not contacted legally, the throw-in had not ended. The arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. (R6-S4-A4).

Third: I highlighted in RED the two contradictory phrases in these two interpretations.

Fourth: The RED phrase in the Casebook Play IS correct. The RED phrase in the Rules Interpreation IS NOT correct. The Casebook Play and the Rules Interpretation are, for all intents and purposes, the same type of infration of the rules.

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

MTD, Sr.

Camron Rust Fri Nov 27, 2009 04:49am

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

bob jenkins Fri Nov 27, 2009 08:17am

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.

mbyron Fri Nov 27, 2009 08:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 638392)
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.

Are you pointing out that the two cases are different in this respect: although in both cases the AP throw-in had not ended legally, in the case of the kicked ball we have a new (non-AP) throw-in, and in the case of the DOG warning we continue on with the original AP throw-in?

In the former case, then, the arrow will not change once the throw-in ends, but in the latter case it will.

BillyMac Fri Nov 27, 2009 09:45am

Welcome Back, Welcome Back, Welcome Back (John Sebastian)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 638384)
I have been away from basketball for the last couple of months. I did not even attend the IAABO Fall Interpreters' Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, this past September 2009.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr: Welcome back. Two months since your last post. You've been missed. I hope that you have been in good health. I just figured that you were busy working in the football concession stand. We could have used your expertise a few times, with you knowing Dr. Naismith personally and all.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post636593

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post636281

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post627333

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post629529

bob jenkins Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 638394)
Are you pointing out that the two cases are different in this respect: although in both cases the AP throw-in had not ended legally, in the case of the kicked ball we have a new (non-AP) throw-in, and in the case of the DOG warning we continue on with the original AP throw-in?

In the former case, then, the arrow will not change once the throw-in ends, but in the latter case it will.

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.

BktBallRef Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:44am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 638384)
Fifth: Has anybody contacted Mary Struckhoff yet about the incorrect phrase in the Rules Interpretation.

No, because it's not incorrect.

BktBallRef Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:03am

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 Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:22am

Sorry ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 638416)
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.

ronny mulkey Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 638385)
You think it will make a difference? They haven't corrected the backcourt mistake yet and it has been, what...2 years?

Camron,

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

thanks

Mulk

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:25am

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.

bob jenkins Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 638420)
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 Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:54pm

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

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Sat Nov 28, 2009 02:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 638480)
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 Sat Nov 28, 2009 09:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 638488)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1