2010 - 2011 Interps

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Ok, I'm not going to call names, but as far as I can tell, there is not even a debate on this one. No one has even suggested that the interp may be correct. (In contrast, there was at least some logic behind the backcourt ruling from a couple years ago, even if most of us disagreed with it.)

Am I wrong on that? Is anybody willing to argue for this ruling? If not, is there any "appeal" process for approved rulings? If there's anything at all we can do, we need to try to keep this one out of the casebook.

This should be a correctable error, but it appears that the rule committee interp is different. The only case plays I see in the case book on this is regarding basket interference. The rule book doesn't explicitly limit 2-10-1-E to just BI, but they only give case plays that involve BI.

If they want to limit it in this way they should modify the rule book. As to an appeals process, I don't know the answer to that. There should be one, if one doesn't exist.

However, this is an official interp and unfortunately we have to live with it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

SITUATION 1: Three-tenths of a second remain on the clock in the second quarter. A1’s throw-in is “caught” by A2, released on a try, and the officials count the basket. The coaches do not protest, the officials do not confer and all participants head to their respective locker rooms. Upon returning to the court with three minutes remaining in the intermission, the opposing coach asks the officials if the basket should have counted since the ball was clearly caught and released with three-tenths of a second on the clock. The officials realize their error at this point. RULING: The goal counts; this is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (2-10; 5-2-5)

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why isn't this a correctable error? This a rule being set aside and erroneously counting a basket. This is actually one of the very few situations that fit under "erroneously counting or canceling a score".

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

As far as I can tell, there is not even a debate on this one. No one has even suggested that the interp may be correct.

For years, the classic example of "erroneously counting or canceling a score" has been regarding the three point shot. We've been told, for many years, that if the officials, for whatever reason, fail to give the "touchdown signal" for a successful three point shot, that this is a correctable error that can be corrected within the correctable error time frame. After the time frame passes this error cannot be corrected.

Don't confuse this situation where the officials correctly signal the three point goal and the scorekeeper fails to count it as three points, which is a bookkeeping error that can be corrected until the officials leave the visual confines of the gym.

In my opinion, SITUATION 1 seems to be a correctable error, that is "erroneously counting a score", and it also appears that the time frame to correct this error has not expired.

Hopefully someone will contact the NFHS on this and they will come to their senses and reverse their interpretation, or at least give more detailed explanation of their interpretation.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

Robert B. Gardner, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2010

SITUATION 1: Three-tenths of a second remain on the clock in the second quarter. A1’s throw-in is “caught” by A2, released on a try, and the officials count the basket. The coaches do not protest, the officials do not confer and all participants head to their respective locker rooms. Upon returning to the court with three minutes remaining in the intermission, the opposing coach asks the officials if the basket should have counted since the ball was clearly caught and released with three-tenths of a second on the clock. The officials realize their error at this point. RULING: The goal counts; this is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (2-10; 5-2-5)

SITUATION 2: A1 is discovered wearing an illegal headband during a live ball. RULING: Illegal player equipment shall not be worn and, if discovered, it must be removed immediately. If it cannot be removed immediately, the player is directed to leave the game. COMMENT: There is no provision to permit a player directed to leave the game to remain in the game by assessing a technical foul or granting a time-out. (3-3-4; 3-3-5)


SITUATION 3: A1 is fouled in the act of shooting and the try is unsuccessful. As the teams line up for the free throws, a double technical foul is called on A2 and B2. RULING: False double foul; the penalties are administered in the order in which they occurred. However, play is resumed after a double technical foul at the point of interruption. The point of interruption is the free throws awarded to A1 for the shooting foul; play resumes from the second free throw (as if the double technical foul never happened). (4-36-2b)

SITUATION 4: A1’s unsuccessful try for goal is rebounded by B1. As A1 returns to the floor after the missed try, he/she twists and then grabs the ankle and goes to the floor. B1 passes the ball to B2, who dribbles into the frontcourt and (a) attempts a try for goal which is not successful but is immediately rebounded by B4 and successfully scored; or (b) attempts a three-point try for goal which is successful. RULING: In both (a) and (b), an official stops play by sounding his/her whistle when the try for goal is released by the B player (player/team control ends on the release for a try). In (a), the successful try by B4 is not scored and play is resumed using the alternating-possession procedure. In (b), play is resumed with a throw-in to Team A anywhere along the end line. (5-8-2 Note)

SITUATION 5: Team A scores a field goal. A1 requests a time-out from the lead official at the exact same time that the head coach from Team B requests a time-out from the trail official. RULING: Both teams are charged a time-out. If both request a 30-second time-out, the time-out duration shall be 30 seconds. If one team requests a 60-second time-out and the other a 30, the duration shall be 60 seconds. Once a time-out is requested and granted, it shall not be revoked. (5-8-3b)

SITUATION 6: On the second attempt of a two-shot foul, the ball comes to rest on the flange. RULING: Alternating-possession throw-in; the free thrower did not violate the provisions of the free throw. (6-4-3)

Although,

I find these interps informative. It is clear there must have been issues with these rules for the interps to be addressed.

I pledge I will continue to follow all published rules and interps.

Who's with me?

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Although,

I find these interps informative. It is clear there must have been issues with these rules for the interps to be addressed.

I pledge I will continue to follow all published rules and interps.

Who's with me?

Sit 2. It is clear to me that officials are not reading the rule book.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Sit 2. It is clear to me that officials are not reading the rule book.

I would put Situation 3 over Situation 2.

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I would put Situation 3 over Situation 2.

I stopped reading

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

Sit 2. It is clear to me that officials are not reading the rule book.

No, that's clearly situation 6.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

SITUATION 1: Three-tenths of a second remain on the clock in the second quarter. A1’s throw-in is “caught” by A2, released on a try, and the officials count the basket. The coaches do not protest, the officials do not confer and all participants head to their respective locker rooms. Upon returning to the court with three minutes remaining in the intermission, the opposing coach asks the officials if the basket should have counted since the ball was clearly caught and released with three-tenths of a second on the clock. The officials realize their error at this point. RULING: The goal counts; this is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (2-10; 5-2-5)

A1 is fouled with .3 tenths of a seconds or less (or more) on the clock and you fail to award the free throw. You give the ball to Team A for a throw-in. They throw it in and time expires. The teams and the officials go to their locker room for halftime. If you find the mistake BEFORE you hand the ball to a player to start the 3rd quarter, does the fouled player get his/her free throws? If yes, what's the difference?

[tbarney]

What if this occurred to end the game and the coach (politely) talks to you about it as you are leaving the court? What do you do then? The game is over, but you are still on the court, so you can make the correction. How is that different from still having jurisdiction over the game during halftime.

[Camron Rust]

The issue in this situation may be just not knowing how much time was on the clock. That would not be correctable.

The example of the FTs is not relevant because the FTs are merited regardless of the time showing on the clock.

[Scrapper1]

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

I don't think I agree with that, because the travel is a judgment about where the ball was caught, or which foot is the pivot. In the NFHS interp, there is no judgment. Everyone agrees the ball was caught and everyone agrees that the clock showed .3 seconds.

So I disagree, but at least there is one voice out there who doesn't think the ruling is completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The example of the FTs is not relevant because the FTs are merited regardless of the time showing on the clock.

I think the example is relevant. It's exactly the same. The rule was set aside incorrectly. In one case, a penalty was not assessed; in the other, a goal was incorrectly counted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

I don't think I agree with that, because the travel is a judgment about where the ball was caught, or which foot is the pivot. In the NFHS interp, there is no judgment. Everyone agrees the ball was caught and everyone agrees that the clock showed .3 seconds.

It is not clear in the NFHS situation that the officials knew there was 0.3 on the clock. The sit. only states that 0.3 was on the clock. But, let's assume they did know.


Perhaps the 0.3 rule is to be treated not as a scoring rule but as a timing rule.....not that they didn't or didn't make the basket but that time must have, by this rule, expired before the shot was released. That actually is the historical basis for this rule.

In the case of a running clock play, you wouldn't go back and change your mind on whether a shot was nor was not before the horn after you count it, go to intermission, and return.

So, not observing the 0.3 rule is not counting the score incorrectly but judging the end of the period incorrectly...a timing mistake....not a correctable error.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

What if the referee knew that there was 0.3 seconds on the clock and also observed and judged that the ball was indeed caught before the try was attempted, but he incorrectly thought that the rule was "less than 0.3 seconds" not "0.3 seconds or less" and so misapplied the rule to a situation which he properly observed?
That would be akin to seeing the traveling violation and calling it, but then enforcing the wrong penalty (perhaps awarding the ball OOB to the wrong team or counting a goal anyway after the travel because the player was fouled prior to the travel).
Your respected official's rationale does not work in this case.
It is certainly possible that the referee/umpire made the properly call, but improperly enforced the rule on the court.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The issue in this situation may be just not knowing how much time was on the clock. That would not be correctable.

The example of the FTs is not relevant because the FTs are merited regardless of the time showing on the clock.

I agree the time on the clock doesn't really matter. My point was that it's the same window as in the situation.

[ejn1958]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins;695974]Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

Robert B. Gardner, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2010

SITUATION 1: Three-tenths of a second remain on the clock in the second quarter. A1’s throw-in is “caught” by A2, released on a try, and the officials count the basket. The coaches do not protest, the officials do not confer and all participants head to their respective locker rooms. Upon returning to the court with three minutes remaining in the intermission, the opposing coach asks the officials if the basket should have counted since the ball was clearly caught and released with three-tenths of a second on the clock. The officials realize their error at this point. RULING: The goal counts; this is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (2-10; 5-2-5)
SITUATION 2: A1 is discovered wearing an illegal headband during a live ball. RULING: Illegal player equipment shall not be worn and, if discovered, it must be removed immediately. If it cannot be removed immediately, the player is directed to leave the game. COMMENT: There is no provision to permit a player directed to leave the game to remain in the game by assessing a technical foul or granting a time-out. (3-3-4; 3-3-5)

This is a correct ruling. The Federation did not make a mistake. You have to look at 2-10 & see what is correctable. This doesn't fall under any of the correctable areas. An officials judgment mistake is not correctable. It's no different than if you handed the ball to the wrong team and they inbounded & scored, and then after the half the officials realized what happened: too late, can't do a thing about it.

This is not erroneoulsy counting or canceling a score. That refers to the scorer counting a basket on a player control foul when the official cancelled the basket, or not counting a made basket as signaled by the official, etc.

This is simply an official's mistake...nothing more, nothing less.

What needs to be brought out here is one simple thing; the crew needs to cover this in pre-game & someone alert the other partners when the situation is about to come into play. There is no reason that the officials can't come together prior to the throw-in & say:"hey, we've got 3/10's left, they can't catch & release, only tap, so whose ever primary it is, kill it if it's caught & thrown".

I know the reaction is we should fix it, but just make sure that it doesn't happen. Have a great season!