2010 - 2011 Interps

[Scrapper1]

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)

Why isn't this a correctable error? This is not a judgment call about whether the try was released before the sounding of the horn. 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". What am I missing????

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)

Why are we resuming from the second free throw? Are they considering the double foul to be a double free throw violation????? That can't possibly be right. So what happens to A1's first free throw?

[tjones1]

The shooter still gets the first free throw... just poor wording.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why are we resuming from the second free throw? Are they considering the double foul to be a double free throw violation????? That can't possibly be right. So what happens to A1's first free throw?

You still shoot the first shot if it hasn't already been attempted.

It only means that the subsequent play resumes after the second free throw as if nothing unusual happened....the players line up on the lane and either rebound the ball or make a throwin as normally occurs.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It only means that the subsequent play resumes after the second free throw as if nothing unusual happened....the players line up on the lane and either rebound the ball or make a throwin as normally occurs.

If that's what they mean, they made a clusterdexter out of the English language. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to get what you said out of "play resumes from the second free throw".

[BktBallRef]

"As the teams line up for the free throws..."

Should have read...

"As A1 is attempting his first free throw..."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why isn't this a correctable error? This is not a judgment call about whether the try was released before the sounding of the horn. 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". What am I missing????

Good question. Perhaps they're considering it a timing mistake and not a scoring mistake.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why isn't this a correctable error? This is not a judgment call about whether the try was released before the sounding of the horn. 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". What am I missing????

The person who authored the ruling to that interp is an idiot and is totally wrong.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Why are we resuming from the second free throw? Are they considering the double foul to be a double free throw violation????? That can't possibly be right. So what happens to A1's first free throw?

Strike the words "resumes from" and replace them with "continues after." That is how the NFHS should have phrased it.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The person who authored the ruling to that interp is an idiot and is totally wrong.

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.

[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.