Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Where do those "Basketball Rules Interpretations" get published?

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