"Dropping a Note without comment "

Anybody know what that means or suggests from the NFHS?

It means they did not feel it was necessary to provide a reason for its removal.

<i> Most </i> times when a rule is changed or dropped they provide some rational, like the lame excuse for the elbow violation they dropped on us htis year.

In this case, there was no comment. Don't read too much into it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Run for your lives, everyone!

The NCAA, by rule, provides for a line up as stated in an earlier post in this thread. The NFHS provides for the same line, but not by rule. The NFHS rule book use to include questions and answers within the rules, theses questions/answers have the same status as Casebook plays. Even though the NFHS has dropped these questions/answers from the rules book, the question and its accompanying answer are still in effect until changed by rule and/or accompanying casebook play. This also applies to both NFHS Casebook Plays and NCAA Appproved Rulings (and Casebook Plays, yes the NCAA use to have a Casebook until it went to the Approved Rulings within the Rules Book).

So, to make a short story long, whether the game is played under NFHS rules or NCAA rules, when one team brings three or more substitutes into the game at the same time, either captain may request a jump ball line up at center court so that his/her team may determine who is guarding who. The request must be made before the ball becomes live after the substitution and must be honored by the game officials.

Mark

and when someone asks you "show me in the rules" you cant do it. We tell them it was a note or comment from some 3, or 5 or 8 years ago? No way!

We as officials are constantly on coaches and fans for not knowing the rules. We laugh about rule myths, we laugh how things get perpetuated... And you suggest the same thing Yet now we say well it's not there now but it was so it has the effect because they never rewrote the comment. That sells like a lead balloon.

Try telling this to a new official... Oh it's not in the current rulebook they sent you. It's not in the casebook, It's not in the Simplified Book, It's not in the official's Manual, and it's not in the basketball handbook, but you need to go back and find every rule book, casebook, etc since Naismith invented the game so that you know all the rulings. And when a coach asks where is that in the rules you can quickly reply that it was in the 1967 Casebook. Oh yeah sell that!


The bottom line in this circumstance there are two choices an official can take...

1) It is not specifically prohibited by rule so we can allow it.

OR

2) It is not specifically allowed by rule so we arent going to do it.

If this is a sixth grade game yes. A varsity game probably not.

BTW in the above post you mentioned either captain.... The NCAA rule listed in the posts is specific to the captain of the opposing team... So if A subs 3 or more under NCAA rules, the captain of B can ask for locating help of the ntering players. I dont think that necessarily means a line up... Player ... "Ref who just came in the ball game there were lots of subs" Referee. "Stop take a second a find all five players... Youve got 30, 23, 45, 52, and 5" out on the floor Got them... Good let's play"!

Take em' to mid court and have them line up Nah, I dont think so!

Just my two cents worth

A basketball rules interpreter is a judge. A judge has to be know the law including all of its nuances. That means he has to know the all of the law that goes before that applies to a particular situation in the present. That means a judge has to do a lot of studying of past law.

A basketball official is just like a lawyer, he has to know all appropriate law (past and present) and how it applies to the here and now.

This school year is my 31st year as a basketball official. That means I have seen a lot of rules, interpretations, and casebook plays come and go. My posting was made based upon 31 years of knowledge of intepretations, casebook plays, and conversations and correspondence with some of the great rules poeople of the NFHS and NCAA. So when I state that the line-up that is referenced in the NCAA rule, is a jump ball line-up, you can rest assured that is exactly what the rules committees wants.

When casebook plays, questions/answers, and approved rulings are dropped from the current rules book or casebook, it does not mean that the ruling is null and void. These rulings get dropped from time-to-time to make room for others. For these rulings and casebook plays to become null and void, the rule that affects the ruling or casebook play must be changed.

We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
 

Good grief, Mark! Get over yourself! <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/notworthy.gif> <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/notworthy.gif> <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/notworthy.gif> <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/notworthy.gif> <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/notworthy.gif>

You told us last year that on simultaneous fouls, FTs are shot. The NF proved your wrong when they included SPF in Rule 4 this year. Sorry but you are not the last word, no matter what you may think. :(

BTW, no one here is. We all miss'em from time to time.

Re: We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
 

One, the NFHS did not prove me wrong regarding simultaneous personal fouls. Prior to this school year there was never on official definition of simultaneous personal fouls in either the NFHS or NCAA rules books. My interpretation for the play that was discussed last year was the same interpretation that was given by the Dick Schindler when he was the NFHS Rules Editor, as well as past and present members of the rules committee. This year the NFHS decided to define simultaneous personal foul and added a casebook play with that definition that made the play consistent with how simultaneous technical fouls are handled.

Concerning the line-up request play, I stand by ruling. It is the correct ruling as decided by the NFHS and until the NFHS publishes a ruling changing it my intepretation is correct because it is the ruling that the NFHS has used for well over forty years.

Give us a break, Mark. All the NF did was include SPF in the definitions. They DID NOT change the way they are handled. FTs should not have been shot last year and they should not be shot this year. If you based your interpretation solely on Dr. Schindler's intrep last year, then you ignored the rules. It was already cited as being an AP sitch in Rule 6. The only change was the inclusion into 4-19-9. As for the case book play, it was obviously written for your benefit. ;)

I would still allow a lineup if requested. However, how is a new official supposed to know about all the rulings that have occurred in the past 31 years? :confused:

Like I said, you need to get over yourself. None of us are the last word in officiating, rules, or intepretations. We all miss'em. Lose the ego, partner. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/up.gif

a little perspective please
 

As I re-read the posts on this thread, I see a lot of "I would (your answer here :) ) if I got this request."

Nobody is regularly seeing this request. I can't remember ever having seen anybody request a lineup outside of rec ball. This is probably one reason it has been dropped from the books. Thus any decision made on the court would have to be accepted and life will continue.

However. . . I would say that Mark is probably right that you can use the old reference as the best reference available, while recognizing that it is not available to many refs and others that were aware of the old reference may not believe it still applies. Nobody is going to (or should) be stringing up a new ref for not responding "appropriately" to the line-up request. But if the ref were to inquire later, I would bet that the official response would be that the request can be allowed.

Excuse me!!!!! Since I have not reffed for 20 or 30 plus years and have moved several times.....Can I get copies of ever rules book and case book ever made......So I can muddy mine mind of rules of yesteryear that have simply been dropped......Just like law...yes there are laws still on the books from yesteryears gone by...many of these laws deal with horse and buggy days or spitting on a sidewalk.

I go by the rule book and case book of this year, some common sense...and I hope I have enough court presence to survive.......But I am not the last word!

AK ref SE

Mark,

Gotta disgree that the NF expects eveyone to know all the previous rules.

Basketball rule are not like the law. very rarely is the law republished once per year. The only one that comes close in the CFR that if I remember right is republished every two years.

Stand by your ruling of 31 years and when a coach says show me in the rulebook you still wont be able to. You just cant do it. Tell the coach it was there 10 years ago but not now but that is still Federation intent. That and fifty cents might get you a cup of coffee at Denny's, after you have scrape him of the floor cause he is laughing so hard


As I said before... we laugh at coaches who chat rule myths at us but what you are suggesting is that. Just admit it is not in the rule book, its not in any other current publication of NF. It just aint there... That's what we get paid the big bucks for using judgement to interpret rules. If you want ot use old stuff to help that's ok, but dont expect everybody else to.

To all of the doubters out there I have only one thing to say: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There is certainly no excuse for an official to have ignorance of the written rules of basketball.There is also nothing in the written rules of basketball that will back up your assertation in this thread.It is exceedingly hard,therefore,not to accept Kelvin's reasoning-or conversely,to accept your reasoning.

Don't forget the rule of thumb!