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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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.

[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

[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.