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?