Who Let The Dogs Out ???

[BillyMac]

Regarding the NFHS 2011-2012 clarification: When an opponent contacts the thrower-in, an intentional foul shall be charged to the offender. Rationale: Any type of contact on a thrower is an intentional foul. The defender does not actually have to break the boundary plane.

Is a delay of game warning still charged to the offender's team in the cases where the offender doesn't actually cross the boundary plane? If so, under which of the following articles?

4-47: A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach:
ART. 1 For throw-in plane violations.
ART. 2 For huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower.
ART. 3 For interfering with the ball following a goal.
ART. 4 For failure to have the court ready for play following any time-out.

10.3.10 SITUATION C: Team A scores near the end of the fourth quarter and is
trailing by one point. B1 has the ball and is moving along the end line to make the
throw-in. A2 steps out of bounds and fouls B1. Is the foul personal or technical?
RULING: This is an intentional personal foul. The time remaining to be played or
whether Team A had been previously warned for a delay-of-game situation is not
a factor. If the team had not been warned, the foul constitutes the warning.

[Jurassic Referee]

As usual, there will be case plays and rules interpretations issued by the FED before next season that should answer all of the questions that we have. Until then, everything is speculation. None of us can give you a definitive answer.

If it is really bothering you though, you do have two alternatives:
1) You can contact Bainsey's IAABO rules interpreter and get his answer to your questions. Then do the polar opposite of what he tells you. That should work.
2) You can sit in a corner with Nevada and chant "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" until the new case plays and rules interps come out.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If it is really bothering you though, you do have two alternatives:
1) You can contact Bainsey's IAABO rules interpreter and get his answer to your questions. Then do the polar opposite of what he tells you. That should work.
2) You can sit in a corner with Nevada and chant "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" until the new case plays and rules interps come out.

It looks like I'm caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As usual, there will be case plays and rules interpretations issued by the FED before next season that should answer all of the questions that we have.

Are we both talking about the same FED? All of our questions? You have got to be kidding me. Have you been drinking Mark Padgett's Kool-Aid?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Have you been drinking Mark Padgett's Kool-Aid?

I'd be glad to sell some of my Kool-Aid to any of you guys. Just email me with your debit card number and PIN. Thanks.

[Rich]

My reaction? Who freaking cares? It's only a game and the NFHS will only figure out how to screw up a rule or two that was never a problem before. And I'll still walk on the court in November and work and it won't matter a bit.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

My reaction? Who freaking cares? I'll still walk on the court in November and work and it won't matter a bit.

So let's say that you're working an early season high school varsity game.

Early in the game your partner calls a very rare "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul, as the new rule states. He also reports it as a delay of game team warning.

Later in the game your partner calls a technical foul on the same team for failure to have the court ready for play following any timeout for having water on the playing court (I actually called a warning for this this past season, first one ever) after already charging a team warning for the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul. Opposing team makes both free throws for the technical foul, and later goes on to win the game by one point.

After the game, after consulting his rule book, the losing athletic director, after handing both of you your checks, politely mentions to both you, and your partner, that you guys might have blown the call, because his team only violated one of the delay of game criterion (water on the court) and should not have received a delay of game warning for the intentional foul on the thrower-in because the player did not go over the boundary line. Thus, his team should have received just a warning for the water on the court, and the opposing team should not have shot, and made, the two technical free throws.

He also tells you that he will be calling your assigner the next morning to discuss the call with your assigner, after which he says that he hopes that both of you have a "Happy Holiday", and that he hopes to see you guys again later in the season.

At this point, don't you think that it would have made a difference in how you, and your partner, would have felt about calling that game if you had known if the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul should have also included a team warning as part of the penalty? Wouldn't it have been nice to know that you and your partner nailed the call, or blew the call? Wouldn't it have mattered then?

And then there's always the possibility of a new rule, or a rule change, or a rule clarification, showing up on a preseason rules refresher exam, that, for some associations, counts toward the number, and quality, of assignments that officials get. If your association gives such an exam, then wouldn't it have mattered then?

[Jurassic Referee]

Billy, these early rules handouts always get clarified before we have to walk out on the floor to use 'em 6 months from now. Sooooo, just take a Midol or sumthin' and try to relax a l'il. Spring is here, not late fall. Go forth and have some fun. Go out and cavort nekkid in your petunias. It'll do you a world of good.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So let's say that you're working an early season high school varsity game.

Early in the game your partner calls a very rare "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul, as the new rule states. He also reports it as a delay of game team warning.

Later in the game your partner calls a technical foul on the same team for failure to have the court ready for play following any timeout for having water on the playing court (I actually called a warning for this this past season, first one ever) after already charging a team warning for the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul. Opposing team makes both free throws for the technical foul, and later goes on to win the game by one point.

After the game, after consulting his rule book, the losing athletic director, after handing both of you your checks, politely mentions to both you, and your partner, that you guys might have blown the call, because his team only violated one of the delay of game criterion (water on the court) and should not have received a delay of game warning for the intentional foul on the thrower-in because the player did not go over the boundary line. Thus, his team should have received just a warning for the water on the court, and the opposing team should not have shot, and made, the two technical free throws.

He also tells you that he will be calling your assigner the next morning to discuss the call with your assigner, after which he says that he hopes that both of you have a "Happy Holiday", and that he hopes to see you guys again later in the season.

At this point, don't you think that it would have made a difference in how you, and your partner, would have felt about calling that game if you had known if the "don't cross the boundary, but still foul the thrower-in" intentional personal foul should have also included a team warning as part of the penalty? Wouldn't it have been nice to know that you and your partner nailed the call, or blew the call? Wouldn't it have mattered then?

And then there's always the possibility of a new rule, or a rule change, or a rule clarification, showing up on a preseason rules refresher exam, that, for some associations, counts toward the number, and quality, of assignments that officials get. If your association gives such an exam, then wouldn't it have mattered then?

I don't have "an assignor." And I don't have an "association" that "assigns games." And it's unlikely that the commissioners and coaches and ADs have a clue about the implications of these decisions, much less know how to piece together the appropriate rules to conclude we $#@$ed up. And I still don't give a $#%@.

They haven't even published these things yet. Let's let the NFHS completely %$#@ it up before we start whinging about it, k?

I actually had a situation that ended up in Struckoff's hands a few years ago. I had passed it to the state office, they sent it up the chain, and I was told I handled it right, although that could change in the future after it gets discussed. The NFHS cared enough about the situation that it didn't result in a case play, an interpretation, or a rule change.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

I am with Rich and JR on this. There is too much worrying about a rule that has not yet to make print yet. And I give them a little more credit as this is a college rule that has some standards for what has been done in the past. Maybe that does not make since to someone that does not work that level, but I am sure there will be a lot of similar wording and exceptions. I will worry when the rules and interpretation are in print. Then as said before we can complain how they screwed it up.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then as said before we can complain how they screwed it up.

I'm not complaining. I'm not worried. I just thought that some interpreters out there might have some early insight into the implications of this rule. Other than that, I can be as patient as the next guy, as long as I'm on my medication, which is a lot stronger than Midol.

JRutledge, Jurassic Referee, and RichMSN: I can see your point, but RichMSN, you really should show at least a little interest in the implications of a rule clarification, especially since non-officials (coaches, fanboys, etc.) are known to frequent this Forum, and we don't want to give them the impression that we don't care about minor rule clarifications. We have debated, and discussed, much more minor rules, and interpretations, than this, on several occasions here on the Forum.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Go out and cavort nekkid in your petunias. It'll do you a world of good.

Petunias, impatiens, and tomatoes are going in the ground next week. Tomato stakes are going in today.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge, Jurassic Referee, and RichMSN: I can see your point, but RichMSN, you really should show at least a little interest in the implications of a rule clarification, especially since non-officials (coaches, fanboys, etc.) are known to frequent this Forum, and we don't want to give them the impression that we don't care about minor rule clarifications. We have debated, and discussed, much more minor rules, and interpretations, than this, on several occasions here on the Forum.

Billy,

I do not think that Rich does not care they way you are suggesting, I think we are jumping the gun. We will not know until the rules are written. And I know I do not care what a fan or coach thinks of my thoughts on the rules a few months before the rules are clearly written. And I really do not care what they think when they do not read the rules themselves when it is made available to them. Bottom line, wait until the rules are in writing and then we can discuss the wording. But right now all we would be doing is speculating about something we have no idea will have an answer. I teach an officiating class and have an official role with the rules and mechanics so I am really interested in what the ramifications mean, but not for the reasons you stated.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge, Jurassic Referee, and RichMSN: I can see your point, but RichMSN, you really should show at least a little interest in the implications of a rule clarification, especially since non-officials (coaches, fanboys, etc.) are known to frequent this Forum, and we don't want to give them the impression that we don't care about minor rule clarifications. We have debated, and discussed, much more minor rules, and interpretations, than this, on several occasions here on the Forum.

I dont know if you're being facetious here or not, it's hard to tell sometimes (and I think you prefer it that way). But while I'm all for debating anything and everything about which I disagree with someone, I'm not for telling someone else what they should show interest in or care about.

And as much as I've jumped in on this, in the end, it doesn't matter. Whether I ask the questions in this forum or not, someone high up will clarify before the opening tip of the hs season.

[APG]

Billy, I'm not sure how you expect us to fully debate this when we don't have the actual rules and case book plays in front of us.

And also, you can't get on Rich for giving the impression he might "give them the impression that we don't care about minor rule clarifications," when you and Mark talk about not letting games go into overtime all the time. Regulars know that you are joking but "since non-officials (coaches, fanboys, etc.) are known to frequent this Forum," we don't want to give them the impression that we care if a game goes into OT or not.