Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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.

[RandyBrown]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

As usual, you ignore my answer, and my argument.

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.

[Adam]

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

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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.

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.