Whither the wolves?
 

Nevada just repeated what I've been arguing since my original post. I don't hear the sound of fresh flesh tearing--what gives? Everything he says is in the book. Is this a second example of that "collective reliance" I was talking about in another thread, where rather than a serious discussion grounded in the books, we just go with what our buddy said (the first being what you all were arguing before Nevada jumped in)?

Research it where? You know of its existence, and won't point me to it? Why would that be?

What are you talking about? Flesh tearing? ?????

I'll re-state my minor quibble with Nevada: Whereas he sees the rule as counter to the intent we're all discussing, I see it as vague and, quite frankly, open to interpretation.

Let me ask you again, how would you resume that play if there was an IW?

I know it's there, but I don't know how to find it. That's why. Let's not assume nefarious motives.

:)Don't be so sensitive, Snaq. I've searched for rules annotations, and never found them, so telling me to "research it" isn't helpful. I am seriously asking: Have you actually seen official rules annotations, or Committee minutes? If so, can you recall ANYTHING about where you saw them.

I've thought about it before, and I can't imagine why they would want to issue annotations, or minutes--everyone would just start interpreting those in various ways. They can say what they mean in the rules language, and give examples in the Case Book where they feel it necessary. Why would they fail to make the rules expressive of their intent if it could be done elsewhere? That makes no sense.

No, I haven't seen the minutes; I'm talking about their change announcements. That, and the history of the rule itself. Prior to this change, DFs always went to the AP.

Let me ask you again; if there's an IW in the middle of an APTI, how are you resuming play?

And as for "why would they fail..." Don't know why, but it happens all the time and they end up making clarifications later (some not announced).

Example. A few years ago, an unannounced editorial change change the penalty for a player catching a throw-in pass while having OOB status. Previously, it was a throwin for the opponent at the spot of the catch. The change made it a throw-in violation with the ensuing throw-in brought back to the original throw-in spot. It got discussed here, and within a year or two, another unannounced changed reverted it back to a simple OOB violation.

l

Exactly! But, that is not to say that while the rule was one way, the "true" intent was actually something different, and so we shouldn't mind that rule. I don't understand how you are tethering this to this thread's substantive question?

By the way, I don't see how this is an example of a failure to express their intent. By what you describe, clearly their intent was not at issue. A subsequent Committee simply decided to rescind the rule change. Where is the failure to communicate their intent THAT COULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED ELSEWHERE? Don't short-change me by ignoring the full context of what I write. [I'm not saying that as evilly as it appears.]

First of all, this may seem petty, but could you please learn to use the quote process properly; or at least how most of us do it around here? Going in to extract your words to respond is too much of a pain.

I did respond to your response, but I'll do it again for you. Your references are jacked up here.

Note rule 7-5-7b does not state a team retains the privelege following an IW. Note the first sentence of the case play states, "the ball is put in play at the point of interruption." Everything else that follows shows how to determine the POI with different examples. Note also that case 7.5.3 does not reference rule 7-5, it references 4-36, though.

Look, the only rule you need for this IW is 4-36-2b. It's resumed with a throw-in for the team that was in the middle of their throw-in. No, it's not covered in 7-5, it's covered in 4-36-1. Just like a double foul. The question is, are you doing an APTI (because that's what they were doing when the whistle blew) or a "standard" TI (because it just says "throw-in") in the rule.

Their intent was not expressed in the rule as written, or do you propose their intent simply changed from one year to the next? It was an editorial change, which are never "designed" to change a rule, only to clarify or simplify the way it's written.

Another example is the BC "exception" in 9-9-3: is it limited to just the items in parentheses, or does it include all situations where the player's team is not in team control? We had a huge discussion a few years ago, because the intent and meaning wasn't clear. They cleared it up with case play 9.9.1D.

If you want me to respond to this intelligently, you are going to have to give me more or better information. Originally, you claimed there was a change in penalty, and I assumed that meant a rule change. Going with what you have given me, it still seems clear that their intent, as expressed in this editorial remark, was understood by you, and others, but that you didn't like it. Are you saying they thought a throw-in provision was being applied incorrectly by some or many, and so they "clarified", only to have a subsequent Committee re-clarify?

Responses to your other posts will take more time than I have left, so late tonight, hopefully.

Okay, first, while I certainly want to communicate in a way you can understand what I'm saying, I really couldn't care less whether you respond intelligently. That part is up to you. :D I'm simply providing an example of a time when the intent of the rules committee was not expressed in the rule itself.

Situation: A1, during a throw-in along his FC endline, throws a pass to A2, standing near the FC sideline. Right before he catches it, his right foot steps OOB.

The old rule was, as it is now, that the throwin would be where he went OOB. Without so much as an announcement, let alone an explanation, they moved the violation from 9-3 to 9-2; making the penalty a throw-in at the spot of the original throw-in. Then, again without an announcement or explanation, they moved it back to 9-3 (9-3-2 to be precise). The assumption (which is what we were left to make) was that their intent all along was to have this be a normal OOB violation rather than a throw-in violation; in spite of what the rule said.

9-9-3 (BC exception) was a different issue altogether, although similar in that their intent was not spelled out in the rule. Even now, the way the rule is written, it leaves room for discussion. That discussion is cut short by the case play, however. Their intent all along was that the items in parentheses were all inclusive, and other moments without team control did not get the "exception".

Randy,
My opinion of what the NFHS committee intended when writing the POI rule a few years ago is gathered from my friend who was a member of the committee for four years as well as the reponses of NFHS rules editor Mary Struckhoff to some questions posed by forum member Chuck Elias.

I still believe that the wording currently in the book does not accurately convey the desire of the committee with the POI rule. A prime example is the point raised by Snaqs about the IW during an AP or end line throw-in. The POI rule calls for a throw-in to the same team, but doesn't specify that it is other than a normal throw-in. My feeling is that where the rules just say throw-in, we have to take that as meaning NOT an AP or end line throw-in and simply a designated spot throw-in. Of course, under the conditions of the game and basic fairness that doesn't make sense, so the rule needs to be amended.

FWIW I've now been officiating HS basketball for fifteen years during which time I've followed changes to the rules quite closely.

Lastly, I do agree with your literal reading of the text. However, I also agree with the context that the other posters on this forum are telling you to consider.

The NFHS rules committee meets in about 10 days. Let's see if a few of us can fire off some emails and get the committee to consider the wording issue with the POI rule.

Understood. You would think there would be a published compilation of all of the changes, editorial remarks, etc.—maybe not officially (there is some sense to maintaining the current editions of the Rules and Case books as the sole source of what matters—“leave the past in the past”), but unofficially.

Maybe there is an old thread on this that you can direct me to: What did your Committee friend have to say about your concern at the time? Did the Committee discuss your concern, and choose the current language nevertheless, i.e., did a majority disagree with your friend, or did he/she and they fail to recognize your concern at the time, in which case, why has a subsequent Committee not altered the language?

What do you think of my handling of Snaq’s AP IW? Yes, the definition of POI at 4-36-2b allows for a common TI when a common TI existed, but why are you ignoring 2c, which allows for an APTI in our circumstances? Those responsible for drafting 2b/c seem to have addressed the issue--to my reading of it, at least.

Snaq:

First of all, this may seem petty

Tell me how to do it.

Note rule 7-5-7b does not state a team retains the privelege following an IW. Note the first sentence of the case play states, "the ball is put in play at the point of interruption." Everything else that follows shows how to determine the POI with different examples. Note also that case 7.5.3 does not reference rule 7-5, it references 4-36, though.


And, . . .? You haven't made an argument. All you have done, here, is restate the book. My argument presupposes your "notes," and you leave my argument untouched. You have to make a counter-argument and/or dismantle mine. Do you disagree that CB 7.5.3(d) is materially identical to your situation, for example?

CB 7.5.3 is an interpretation of Rule 7, Section 5. Its very existence is a reference to it.

Look, the only rule you need for this IW is 4-36-2b. It's resumed with a throw-in for the team that was in the middle of their throw-in.

You are struggling to hold on to what you read in to 4-36-2b at the beginning of this thread, by using an anolgy to inadvertent whistle. The books treat them differently, I say. I also say you ignore my argument, and can make none of your own, because you are blinded by your original conception of this matter. Let go. Drink the Federation cool-aid. Let the rules as written guide you to the truth. :)

The question is, are you doing an APTI (because that's what they were doing when the whistle blew) or a "standard" TI (because it just says "throw-in") in the rule.


As usual, you ignore my answer, and my argument. 4-36-2c is staring you in the face, but you only have eyes for 2b.

Luke 11:9-10 ...
 

Obliged. Can you clue me in as to how this all works? Where do those "Basketball Rules Interpretations" get published? I checked what was posted for 08-09 against Part 1 of that year's CB, and they do not match. The interpretations in the post appear to be too numerous to all be in Part 2 of the CB, yes? I notice not all of what is in the CB Part 1 of a particular year makes it into Part 2 of the same year and subsequent years. Is it that they feel some interpretations are only helpful for the year of transition, and not thereafter?

In "Chicks and Ammo" magazine. (thanks to Robin Williams)

Right Here ...
 

Put me down for that also. It's a waste of time arguing with a know-nothing second-year official who doesn't know or understand the rules but doesn't let that stop him from making a fool of himself.

Carry on carrying on. :rolleyes:

Thanks.

BillyMac - thanks. I was able to follow that link to the water polo rules interpretations. :)

Current interpretations are posted online on the NFHS website I believe.

As a side note...the first play is another head scratcher as far as interps go IMO...not on the level with the "other" infamous one but still a scratcher.

He's not interested in the rules and our interpretations of them. He's trying to win some wordsmithing contest.

And he also saying he doesn't trust that the past interps posted throughout the years are really from the NFHS because you can't link back to them from the NFHS website.

You are mistaken, once again, NFR! :)

Your second contention is ridiculous on its face--his link is to a page on NFHS's site, for goodness sake! Look at your browser's URL bar.

I should have known what was going on, immediately. I withdraw the question.

Thanks.

Hint 1: use "copy" and then use "paste" if you want to break quotes up in a away that your answers are easily quotable.

I dismantled your argument, but you weren't paying attention. No, 7.5.3(d) is not identical, because the interruption in my situation occurs "during a throw-in." 7.5.3(d) occurs duing a try; since the try is successful, the applicable rule is 4-36-2b, "a team is entitled to such." Now, the applicable rule is the same for my play, because "the interruption occurred during this activity." Just to make my point clear; the phrases themselves refer to different situations but result in the same resolution.

It's not an analogy; the point is the rule is identical for the two situations, yet you want to treat them differently.

If you think you have to go to a standard throw-in in one, you have to do it in the other case as well.

I'm not ignoring it; it's quite the indictment of your ability to read the rules, actually. 4-36-2c applies to situations where there is no team control, throw-in, or free throw involved. Example: 7.5.3(c). Another example would be a double foul committed after a throw-in pass is tipped but before it is controled by a player inbounds. You can't use it for an interruption during a throw-in; ever. Otherwise, you should be going AP (for the wrong reason) on the initial play in question.

Another case of free speech providing it's secondary benefit.

I can't answer for how Nevada views your handling of the play, but one thing I neglected to do in my last post is layout how POI is supposed to be handled. Read the applicable articles in order.

If it fits 4-36-2a, go with that.
If not, but it fits 4-36-2b, go with that.
If neither of those, go with 4-36-2c.

Again, if you use 4-36-2c for an IW during an AP throw-in (right answer, wrong reason), you'll also have to use it during any throw-in and you'll be using the arrow when it's not appropriate.

THe NFHS provides interps every yuear and posts them on their website. They don't keep an archive(on the site, that I know of). (Before Al Gore invented the interwebs, they published them in NFHS quarterly and ... soe other FED publication I can't recall at the moment.)

I guess I'm going to need step-by-steps, because I don't know how you get independent quotes to appear like you do within the same post. Are you manually placing the QUOTE parameters around every independent phrase that you are copy-and-pasting? I have copied and pasted before, but not using QUOTE parameter syntax. I don't think you considered the way I did it acceptable. I want to say that I could copy and paste equally easily, regardless of the method someone uses to respond. Not so?

My first response is to question why you apply a mandatory order to the POI options. The definition specifies no particular order in which the three options need be considered. I would argue that if the drafters thought a particular order was material, they would have stated it exactly as you did. I'm not willing to divine a particular order. I'm going to stick with what is written, and not add anything. I read them as parts of a single definition, set apart only to communicate the three possibilities. From what I can tell so far, they seem to be mutually exclusive when other rules in the book are also considered, making a particular order irrelevant.

Again, I submit that you are reading into the book's current language what isn't there in order to make it fit with your pre-conception of how POI functions, which I think you have argued is rooted in the past. You can do whatever you want, but your way causes incongruity, as Nevada, Referee Magazine, Scrapper, and myself have contended. In the course of this thread, I have pointed out other passages in the books that are at odds with your conception of POI. Relying only on what is actually written in the definition of POI allows all of it to operate congruously, so I will stick with that.

Next, I accurately predicted your "right answer, wrong reason" position. Given your pre-conception with regard to POI, you have no choice but to take that position. I have no idea where you get the idea that relying only on what is written in the definition of POI dictates 2c for every TI. 2c excludes itself if there is team control, for starters (team-control DF, for example), and adds three additional exclusionary circumstances. I am dumbfounded by your statement. Please correct/clarify yourself.

Thank you, sir. So, is there purpose to their lack of archiving? Obviously, they could do it with ease. Would an archive just contribute to confusion, and that explains why they don't make an archive available? Is it a case of if you weren't around at the time, you're better off just sticking with the current editions of the books?

Everyone, feel free to answer this one.

If you want to quote mutliple posts, then click on the icon directly to the right of the quote button that looks like this http://forum.officiating.com/images/...iquote_off.gif. It will turn orange when you have clicked it meaning that post will be quoted. If you want to quote multiple parts of a single post, then highlight the pertain part and copy it. Then when you are replying to the post press the quote button. It should look like this http://forum.officiating.com/images/editor/quote.gif. Then paste the copied portion in between the quotes. Keep copying the parts that you want to quote and using that quote button until you're finished.



Why don't they archive it? We don't know and it's a question we've wondered for a while. Many of the interpretations seem to be still valid so it would make sense to keep them up. As far as we know, all the interpretations are valid unless a subsequent rule or rule overrides it.

No, 7.5.3(d) is not identical, because the interruption in my situation occurs "during a throw-in." 7.5.3(d) occurs duing a try; since the try is successful, the applicable rule is 4-36-2b, "a team is entitled to such."
Because you read into POI's definition at 2b what is not written there, you disregard Rule 7, the rule that governs TIs, and Resumption-of-Play Procedures. 7-5-7 is dispositive. Your entire hang-up with every substantive point we have debated in this thread stems from your reliance on your conceptualization of a mere definition in spite of other rules to the contrary. Nevada pointed this out to you. I thought you accepted his correction, but obviously not.

CB 7.5.3(d) interprets 7-5-7. It tells us that 7-5-7 does not strip the non-scoring team of a NDTI in the case of an IW when it occurs during a live ball, no team control, with a goal involved. These conditions are facts that are not altered by you referring to it as a "try". The material conditions are identical in both situations. As you pointed out, 7-5-7b mentions a couple of conditions in which the ND privilege is retained, but it does not say those are the only conditions where it is retained. If they intended what you are suggesting, they would have added the word "only". They are simply expressing a couple of notable examples, and do not say those two are exhaustive. Stating otherwise would be reading into the rules something not written, again. Your reading of 7-5-7b is disproven by CB 7.5.3(d), because the condition in CB 7.5.3(d) is not one of the conditions mentioned in 7-5-7b, yet ND is maintained, anyway. Why would it be retained before the goal, while the ball is in flight, but not after the goal while it is at the disposal of the non-scoring team? You can provide no material difference between those two situations, and I can provide those three material commonalities.

I'm not ignoring it; it's quite the indictment of your ability to read the rules, actually. 4-36-2c applies to situations where there is no team control, throw-in, or free throw involved.
Just quote 2c. 2c says nothing about self-exclusion in the case of TI or FT. You are folding 2b into 2c's parameters. Quote 2c in its entirety, and only 2c! Your APTI situation meets 2c, period. Forget 2b. Nothing says to ignore 2c if there is a TI involved. You are reading that in. If you just can't let go of 2b, think of 2b prescribing a TI, and 2c prescribing that the TI will be an APTI. No where does the language of the definition instruct us to ignore 2c when 2b works.

Got it.

I suppose so. In regard to their interpretations, how do you read their caveat, "They do not set aside nor modify any rule."?

I read it as saying that they're interpreting the rule.

But whatinthehell do I know?

Since no one here works for the NFHS, I guess you'll have to contact them directly. I encourage you to do so.

Not bad. Here's Welpe's favorite, though.
 

That may have gone without saying, Jurassic. I'm more interested in what Snaq seemed to be saying in posts 107 and 112, that these interpretations are never "designed" to change a rule, but sometimes do--in some sense. Obviously, if the publishing of these interpretations sometimes results in changing the existing interpretations of a significant number of officials, the effect approaches a rules change. If you've ever experienced that, yourself, do you always react with a "thank you" to the drafters for setting you straight, or have you sometimes determined they have changed a rule, and reject the interpretation on those grounds.

I would think that would have been done by predecessors, if not proactively offered by NFHS at some point in the past. If no one here knows, for sure, I'm guessing an answer would not be forthcoming as a result of my efforts, today. I'd be interested in an educated guess by some of you who have been around for a while, like Nevada, who had a friend on the Committee for four years. The real upshot, here, is do you all recommend I dig into those past interpretations, or are they better left in the past?

Hey Randy Brown
 

I googled your name for images and got this (not kidding). Is this you?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/...415c98fac4.jpg

If it buys me credibility, I confess--and I'm single.

If you try it without the safe search on, please don't post.

Sometimes, the interpretations develop into case plays. My past interpreter was on the rules committee for 4 years. I can ask him about past interpretations, but my best guess is that they may not be archived for the same reason you may not see old rules archived--it may lend to confusion if in fact rules had changed. An archivist would have to sort out which ones apply to up to date rules and which ones may no longer apply. Thus, you would not only need archived interpretations, but rules, case plays and POE from all of the same years and track which ones still apply and which ones do not.

You have zero credibility here, "that guy". And you have also illustrated here many times why you are single, and are likely to remain so. :)

A real sexist pig might say something crass and insensitive, like "Well sweetie, that's probably because you're so high maintenance."

But the Jurassic one would quickly put that cretin in his place."

First of all, now that you know how to quote multiple posts, you can learn how to break a single post into multiple quoted portions. This separates your words from those to which you are responding.

1. Click on "quote" on the post which you want to quote.
2. Copy the portion where it says "quote=xxxx:111111". Don't forget to include the brackets in your copy.
3. Stop the quote by typing "/quote", including the aforementioned brackets.
4. Paste in the "quote=xxxx:1111111" portion again to begin a new quote. The "111111" simply references a specific post, so the process allows people to click on it and be moved directly to the quoted post.

Like I said, you may find it petty. It was merely a request to conform with the prevailing method used here if you're going to engage in elongated discussions.

Really? Mutually exclusive? Yet you messed up a very basic concept by trying to use 4-36-2c when an interruption occurs during a throw-in, which is clearly a 4-36-2b issue. Frankly, until we can establish agreement on this point, I'm not sure it's worth any more discussion.

No, I did not say "rely(ing) only on what is written.... dictates 2c for every TI." I said without a way of prioritizing the articles, there is no consistent way of deciding whether to use 2b or 2c during a throw-in. Any interruption during a throw-in, by definition, also occurs when there is no team control.
4-12-6

I still haven't read any combination of rules from Mr. Brown that says the POI throw-ins don't retain their original status. I want him to quote where it says it "will not be an AP throw-in" and that the endline throw-in "will now be a designated spot throw-in".

I'm sure he doesn't need step-by-step instructions how to read and then type it exactly word-for-word.

How charitable of you.

Gah! I just knew this one was coming out again...:mad:

[QUOTE=Snaqwells;746518][/QUOTE]
 

I didn't consider it petty, but wondered if worth the effort. I can see that it has its uses. "Thanks" to you and APG for the lessons.

It does appear to be at the heart of it, I agree.

You are definitely begging the question. Approach the issue without preconception, as evidenced by, "you messed up a very basic concept". Your use of "priority" is further evidence of preconception.

The Article's drafters specified no particular order or hierarchy for parts a, b, and c. It is just a simple list. We could scramble the list's identifying letters, and it would make no difference to application or meaning. The drafters easily could have (and no doubt would have) included a hierarchy if they intended one. No where does it say, if b, then not c, as you suggested in a previous post. Can we agree on that? If not, indicate the word or words that you think direct you to consider the parts in a particular hierarchical order. Don't introduce our play situation in some way, here; rely on the language as written. If we agree so far, then all parts are theoretically relevant to any given play situation, simultaneously. According to the language, then, nothing proscribes c from applying merely because b could also be construed to apply. This is where I say you depart from the language. In TI situations, you say that if b can be construed to apply, c must then be disregarded.

So far, in your play situations that you have been testing my interpretation of Article 2 with, you say I have gotten the outcomes correct, but by incorrect means. My means (a strict adherence to the language) gets me the correct answers on your test situations, and then also squares me with Referee Magazine, Scrapper, and Nevada in Bob Jenkins' play situation. If there is an inconsistency, it appears to be with your means--unless you have gone back to Jurassic times. [Could not resist:)]

Have you found your NFHS book, yet?

I'm going to drop all the snark and just start dealing with the issue: now, let me ask these basic questions and we'll start from there.

APTI interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? You've stated before you're using 4-36-2c to go with an AP because there is no team control (TC), is that still your opinion?

Endline throwin interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? Are you going with 4-36-2c again?

Standard, non-AP, spot throw-in interrupted by an IW. How do you resume? 4-36-2c? If not, why not?

My popcorn bill is going to be extremely high after this one is over. :D

Yep...and didn't see any language that says it cannot be an AP or non-designated throw-in when going to POI. Could you be so kind to quote the exact verbiage you're basing your ruling on? I'm away on business now and didn't bring my books.

You are assuming there will be a lock.

THIS is the one you were thinking about
 

You are not correct here. The A, B, C order of the items is important. The POI rule is a three step process which an official must apply to the specific situations mentioned in the top portion of the rule to determine how to resume the game.
The first step is to determine if there was team control by either side. If so, then that team receives a throw-in at the nearest OOB spot to the location of the ball. That is Part A and that takes priority over the other two listings.
This is obvious too. You have a double foul while team A is dribbling near the division line. You apply Part A and stop. You don't consider using AP arrow as stated under Part C. There are even Case Book plays which instruct us on the administration and all of the rulings adhere to the A, B, C order of the POI rule.

Please understand that the intent of the committee is to use the AP arrow as a last resort when determining possession. If anything else (team control, a team due a throw-in or FT, a throw-in or FT was in progress) can be used, then that takes priority and possession is awarded based upon that action.

The arrow is only used when there is no reason to give one team the ball over the other, such as an unsuccessful try for goal and no one has yet obtained control of the rebound when the stoppage occurs. See the Case Book play on a DF when there is a try in flight and how to resume if it is successful or unsuccessful.

Nevada, you may have fallen into snarkless Snaq's trap. Here, I believe he is arguing that team A gets to keep the APTI that existed at the time of the IW because of 2b. His endgame is to use agreement with him on this to support his position regarding Bob Jenkins' situation--if 2b prescribes APTI when IW, then 2b prescribes APTI when DF. I say you may have fallen into his trap, because you seem to rely exclusively on the language of 2b back in post 94 when you discuss the APTI question. I believe you contradict yourself if you rely exclusively on 2b for your conclusion in 94, and then rely exclusively on 2b to say 2b prescribes an APTI in the case of an IW during an APTI.

Using your own words, I have to disagree with your assertion that an actual hierarchy exists in Article 2. I refer you back to your words in post 94: "Too bad that's not how they wrote the rule," ". . ., but that is NOT what the text of the POI rule says," and, "The strict text of the POI rule . . .." If the drafters indended a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be arguing about it--that's how they would have written the rule.

When Article 2 is read as a whole, in context with other rules and Case Book examples that relate to POI, I don't see a purpose to divining a hierarchy. The appropriate option presents itself based on the circumstances of the play situation and a simple process of elimination. Replace the identifying letters with bullets, or scramble the list's "order", and tell me if doing so changes the outcome of any of those Case Book plays you refer to. Using your DF example while dribbling, there is no need to begin with "a". One could begin with "b" or "c", and the result is still "a", because "b" and "c" eliminate themselves, do they not?

I agree with what you say regarding the definition of POI and how APTI fits into it. I don't rely on some hierarchy that is not stated in the text for that, however. Other rules and Case Book examples make it clear that the APTI component of the POI definition is a fairness mechanism, as it is used in the case of a held ball, or ball knocked OOB unseen by an official or by two opponents simultaneously.

Since you offer no answer or rebuttal to what I said where Nevada quotes me, I take it you want to "start" elsewhere, because you have no answer or rebuttal.

My primary answer from Post 78: "Sounds like AP, to me. 7-5 doesn't cover it, as far as I can determine. The CB offers what I mentioned in Sitch 1, which together, seem to put such whistles into their own category--we're advised to treat them as though they didn't happen, to the extent possible." As far as I could find, there isn't one instance in the books where IW doesn't result in a resumption of play entailing everything that was in existence at the time of the IW, to the extent that is possible. Can you point me to one?

Same answer. The books seem to treat it the same as an official's TO--or any legally administered TO, I suppose.

You can see it how you want. I see we're at an impasse. Either I'm incapable of dismantling your point, or you're incapable of recognizing that dismantling. In the end, it doesn't matter which of us is right on that point. I felt it was time to simply start over. No points have been conceded either way.

Nowhere in the rules are IWs treated differently than DFs. Or am I missing it?

4-36-1 lists all the times POI is to be used, and there isn't a different POI rule for IWs vs DFs.

My point is, if you revert back to the original AP throw-in on an IW, you need to do so for a DF as well. 7-5-3b directs you to 4-36 for DFs, which is a redundant version of 4-36-1.

Now that you've learned to quote properly (thank you), you can drop the color changes if you want.
Now, if you think Nevada is falling, has fallen, or ever will fall, for anything I have to say; you're sadly mistaken. I don't possess that sort of power over anyone, especially Nevada.

My response to this point, however, is simple.

Sitch: Spot throw-in (non-AP) for A. DF called, during the throw-in, on A2 and B2. Without a heirarchy, how do you determine whether to use 4-36-2b (a new TI for A) or 4-36-2c (an APTI for whomever has the arrow)? There is no team control, and it's during a throw-in, so either could apply. Right? If not, why not?

No one is saying the heirarchy is spelled out in the rule; but you can't properly apply it without going through them in order.

Notice the blue font...I blame Jud for this one.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MK6TXMsvgQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Someone let me know when Randy actually quotes a rule word-for-word. Until then all his typing is just a bunch of BS.

He's been officiating a whole 1 1/2 years and he is now the Messiah when it comes to rules interpretations. :rolleyes:

How has basketball survived this long without him?

He is, and he is correct that 2b is the applicable portion of the rule which applies as a throw-in was in progress at the time of the stoppage. That's exactly how the rule reads and its intent. The only issue that I have with the text of the rule is that it does not specify that the AP status of the throw-in or the end line running ability of the throw-in is retained.
Part 2c is NOT the proper portion of the POI rule to apply when there is a throw-in or FT in progress or due for a team and a stoppage of the kind listed in the POI rule occurs.

I concur with his analogy. Since the text of the rule in 2b only says throw-in and not AP throw-in or end line throw-in, if we are going to revert for a specific type in one situation, then we need to revert to the type of throw-in in the other as well.
The problem is not that of Snaqs or Bob Jenkins, but rather that of the NFHS rules writers who failed to consider this small point. Snaqs and Bob are applying the correct portion of the rule 2b. It is the ONLY portion of the rule which applies during a FT or throw-in or when such activity is due to either team. You wish to apply 2c, but that portion isn't for when throw-in or FT activity was occurring or about to occur when the stoppage took place, so it cannot be applied.
My only issue with the text of the NFHS rule is that under 2b the drafters failed to consider what to do if the POI rule needs to be applied during an AP throw-in or an end line running throw-in as opposed to during just a normal designated-spot throw-in? They failed to provide a detailed instruction whether the throw-in status is retained or not.

2b is the ONLY portion of the POI rule to use or to refer to for the posed situations. 2a and 2c DO NOT APPLY. You must learn that. There is no argument to this point.
I have agreed that the text of the rule doesn't lend itself to awarding either an APTI following a DF or an IW, but that is what experience on the court and with the NFHS rules committee members is telling us to do. If I had to pick simply from the text of the POI rule, then it would be a normal designated-spot throw-in. Thankfully, as an experienced HS official, I can draw on a bit more than is directly in the book. That is what BNR is doing as well. The difference between us is that I admit that the rule as written doesn't lend itself to awarding other than a normal throw-in.

All of my statements which you have just quoted pertain to my opinion that the NFHS rule writers failed to specify that whatever throw-in status is retained when the POI rule is applied. My comments do not pertain to the hierarchy inherent in Article 2 of the POI rule. The hierarchy is iron-clad. It is there and must be there for the rule to make sense. Otherwise, one could ALWAYS award and APTI when applying the POI rule. That is NOT what the intent of having the rule is. That is how the game was prior to the committee writing and instituting the rule. The whole reason that they did so was to change how the administration was.

2c would never eliminate itself as it is written to apply to all situations not covered by 2a and 2b. Also, as I just wrote above, 2c used to be the way to resume the game prior to the NFHS instituting the POI rule, the concept of which was taken from the NCAA ranks.
If you started with 2c, you would be forced to say that it applies to the given situation on the court and resume with an APTI every time. So the scrambling is wrong and a, b, c are ordered and the rule must be applied in that specific stepwise process.
The rulings for several of the Case Book plays would change. For example, Team A releases a try for goal. While the ball is in flight, B3 and A3 commit a double personal foul. The try is successful. How does the game resume? The Case Book tells us that Team B gets a throw-in and MAY RUN THE END LINE. If we used your scramble method, we could just as well award an APTI to whichever team the arrow favors. Not the same outcome!

Yes, an APTI is used as a last resort when there is no other way to determine possession. That is why it is listed LAST as 2c following the other two steps, namely team control or throw-in/FT in progress or pending. If you wish to see it as a fairness mechanism, then that is fine, but it is the final step, not the first on the checklist.

May I suggest that you be wise beyond your years and just ignore ol' Randy? He's not smart enough to know what he doesn't know. And you'll ain't ever gonna get that through to him.

And we sureashell don't need another voice present in this interminable back and forth anyway where the exact same points are being made over and over again, with maybe a very slight change in the wording every now and then. Leave that to the cunning linguists. Let 'em have their fun.

http://forumspile.com/Misc-Yes_No_(Monty_Python).gif

Poke The Bear ...
 

Great. Now we've got Jurassic Referee posting images, embedded video images. This from a guy who probably once called movies "talkies". This is going to get really good. Really really good.

You've lost me, Nevada. This is just patently false. Your DF situation involved team control, and an infraction--both of which exclude 2c by 2c's own language. What are you talking about, here?

No duh. :cool:

Same question:
Non AP spot throw-in for A. During the throw-in, there is a) an IW b) a DF or c) a CE.
Do you use 4-36-2b or 4-36-2c?

and I don't think of it in terms of points, but this last part is all I was saying--and you agree with me.




The very first words I said in this thread:


You're begging the question. Your statement expresses a conclusion which is actually what is in question, here--as far as this part of our discussion is concerned, I mean. We have yet to see whether they must be gone through in a particular order so as to yield consistent results. So far, I haven't come up with a play situation where a particular order changes the outcome, as long as I don't read things into the definition to begin with, and am willing to include other passages in the books.




That is what I have been arguing since my original post:For NFR, who may be without his book, 6-1-2's subnote reads, "Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live." But it would start with a jump ball if an IW occurred before the ball became live! An IW is not an infraction. When an infraction occurs, we are told everything resets, and we follow the rules governing the infraction from that point forward. That is why an APTI becomes history in the case of an interrupting infraction. Everything resets, we follow the course dictated by the infraction, and off we go--with A having retained the arrow for the next APTI. I go on in subsequent posts with additional Rules and Case Book citations which definitely seem to support this.




Now, you sound like me--arguing strict adherence to the rules as written.:) Yes, I agree, and that is why I argue it isn't simply a matter of a definition. Other passages in the books are informative, as well. IWs appear to be like TOs (including officials' TOs)--"do-overs", unless otherwise specified.




I think I agree with you, here, but I'm missing the import. I don't understand how this disproves that infractions are treated differently than IWs.

No, it wasn't all you were saying. We're saying it's not written that way, but it has to be applied that way. You are disagreeing with the second half of that.

Please answer my most recent question, and we'll see.

Two problems, your theses are simply too long, and you're over thinking the rules. Simply treat them all (IWs, DFs, etc) the same as prescribed in 4-36-1, and go through articles a, b, and c in order.

The rules aren't meant to be complex philosophical problems requiring an advanced degree in rhetoric or mathematics.

Point, Counterpoint ...
 

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y7S_XWuKpHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It either is or it isn't, and everyone can make up his or her own mind.