Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They did a poor job specifying their desires.

The case play querry and response sent to the NFHS committee member and answered by Mark Struckhoff went directly against the written rule, so obviously the committee intended to simply restore the situation to as it was at the time of the DF.

The NFHS committee may certainly have desired to restore the same circumstances as prior to the DF,

(although I concede that is the basic intent of the rule),

The bottom line is that once again we have detected an instance of the darn rule not saying what the committee wanted it to say because they didn't draft it well.

Could you please state your source for the "true" desires and intents of the Rules Committees regarding rules. My understanding is that these are expressed in only two ways: 1) the language of the rules, themselves, and 2) model rules interpretations, which I thought are what comprise the Case Book.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Could you please state your source for the "true" desires and intents of the Rules Committees regarding rules. My understanding is that these are expressed in only two ways: 1) the language of the rules, themselves, and 2) model rules interpretations, which I thought are what comprise the Case Book.

Sometimes, recognizing the history of the rules helps to ascertain the intent of the changes. Also, when the changes are announced, they sometimes are accompanied by such explanations.

That said, if you want it, you'll have to research it yourself (unless Nevadaref or someone else wants to help). The fact that you're alone in your interpretation should be telling. If it's not, that is telling. And for the record, RefMag's opinion doesn't mean you're not alone.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sometimes, recognizing the history of the rules helps to ascertain the intent of the changes. Also, when the changes are announced, they sometimes are accompanied by such explanations.

That said, if you want it, you'll have to research it yourself (unless Nevadaref or someone else wants to help). The fact that you're alone in your interpretation should be telling. If it's not, that is telling. And for the record, RefMag's opinion doesn't mean you're not alone.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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

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

[RandyBrown]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

[Adam]

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.

[RandyBrown]

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)?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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)?

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?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Re-read Jurassic's, NFR's, your own, and possibly others' responses to my posts in this thread, and compare them to what you have responded with to Nevada. Nevada’s reading of the rules as written is identical to my own. I was not present at the Committee discussions when each of the rules in question were considered and drafted, so I have no knowledge of each of the various Committee members' intents over the years (not that their individual intents matter). All I have to go by is what they chose collectively, as a rules-making body, to write in the books over the years, the culmination of which is the current editions of both. When a current Committee feels intent wasn't accurately stated by a previous Committee, or when they choose to change the intent for their own reasons, they make the change necessary in the language. What is in the book is their best possible expression of their intent—it is as clear as they could make it, and still have it fit together with other rules. That doesn’t mean it is going to be easy for EVERYONE to discern. Some have a more difficult time than others. You all of the sudden switched your position on the substantive questions of the thread, apparently simply because Nevada has now said what I have been saying.

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.

Which is my point--you refer to it as a minor quibble, now. Nevada uses language like "clearly states," and "directly against the written rule," and "People must understand that POI is not reverting to exactly what was happening in the game when it was stopped." Your quibble is not minor; it is the very essence of what we have been debating. If you disagree, than you and I do not communicate on any level.

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

I believe I answered that one, and supported it with book references. I'm not going to repeat myself. Ask me something specific about my response, and use book references, so we don't spend eternity debating, only to have Nevada step in.

l

[Adam]

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I believe I answered that one, and supported it with book references. I'm not going to repeat myself. Ask me something specific about my response, and use book references, so we don't spend eternity debating, only to have Nevada step in.

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

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I'd go with a non-designated endline TI. Reasoning: Although I cannot find a rule directly on point, CB 7.5.3(d) is identical--live ball, no team control, involves a goal. CB 8.6.1, 9.1.1(a), 9.2.1SitB(a) are helpful in various ways, as well. I can find absolutely nothing that could be read to contradict continuing as if the interruption never occurred. I thought it interesting that once A2 catches the pass, we are back to no team control (on its face, 4-12-2b indicates team control existed during the pass), and 4-36-2c would dictate an APTI for the POI (like CB 7.5.3(c)), but for the goal involved in the situation when the game was interrupted. So, how'd I do? WRONG, again?

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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. If that's not enough, there was no team control, and an official's TO is not an infraction, and there is no goal or end-of-period involved at the time of the interruption--seems to meet the definition of POI at 2c, which provides for an APTI. The arrow didn't change, since the original APTI never "ended" the way the book defines a TI as ending. Right, again? Wrong reasons, though, huh--because my reasons don't get you where you were hoping to lead me.

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.