Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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?

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.]

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.]

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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. 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".

[Nevadaref]

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Randy,
My opinion of what the NFHS committee intended . . ..

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.