NFHS 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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]

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

[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.

[mbyron]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

back court violation in bounds question

How'd We Do?

Ball hits player already out of bounds

I'm Back

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

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.

[ronny mulkey]

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?

Camron,

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

thanks

Mulk

[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.

[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.