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.

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

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.

Welcome Back, Welcome Back, Welcome Back (John Sebastian)
 

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

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.

No, because it's not incorrect.

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?

Sorry ...
 

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.

Camron,

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

thanks

Mulk

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.

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

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

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.

Late to the party, what mistake was that?

PM Sent.

See:

• http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tion-10-a.html
• http://forum.officiating.com/basketball/55532-one.html
• http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...itch-10-a.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.