Double Foul During AP Throw-In

[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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Where do those "Basketball Rules Interpretations" get published?

NFHS | Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2010-11

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS | Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2010-11

Thanks.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS | Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2010-11

BillyMac - thanks. I was able to follow that link to the water polo rules interpretations.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS | Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2010-11

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.

[Raymond]

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.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Adam]

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

Current interpretations are posted online on the NFHS website I believe.

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Current interpretations are posted online on the NFHS website I believe.

Thanks.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

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.)

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.)

Thank you, sir. So, is there purpose to their lack of archiving? Obviously, they could do it with ease. Would an archive just contribute to confusion, and that explains why they don't make an archive available? Is it a case of if you weren't around at the time, you're better off just sticking with the current editions of the books?

Everyone, feel free to answer this one.

[APG]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

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?

If you want to quote mutliple posts, then click on the icon directly to the right of the quote button that looks like this . It will turn orange when you have clicked it meaning that post will be quoted. If you want to quote multiple parts of a single post, then highlight the pertain part and copy it. Then when you are replying to the post press the quote button. It should look like this . Then paste the copied portion in between the quotes. Keep copying the parts that you want to quote and using that quote button until you're finished.

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Thank you, sir. So, is there purpose to their lack of archiving? Obviously, they could do it with ease. Would an archive just contribute to confusion, and that explains why they don't make an archive available? Is it a case of if you weren't around at the time, you're better off just sticking with the current editions of the books?

Everyone, feel free to answer this one.

Why don't they archive it? We don't know and it's a question we've wondered for a while. Many of the interpretations seem to be still valid so it would make sense to keep them up. As far as we know, all the interpretations are valid unless a subsequent rule or rule overrides it.