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.