Throw-In/Inadvertent Whistle

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, of course not. That's why he's making the lame excuse of "there's a powerpoint."

....

There's nothing in the rule book to support what you're saying. It makes no difference what they said in a Powerpoint presentation, the rule book has the final say.

Until they make a change regarding when team control ends, Team A still has team control in the OP.

While I would like to agree with you, the rule book also has a phrase about knowing the INTENT and PURPOSE of a rule. No matter what the printed rule says, the NFHS has published their intent of what they meant it to say.

By the letter of the rule, the situation I posted above would be a backcourt violation, a 3 second count would start as soon as the ball is tipped or bounces inbounds in the frontcourt, and all sorts of other stuff would also occur when the ball bounces. But it doesn't.

They've told us in no uncertain terms that the only part of team control that begins with the throwin is the part that affects fouls and everything else that depends on team control still works the way it did before...when a player inbounds gains player control.

I agree 100% that the RULE as written doesn't say that, but again, they've told us that is not what they meant it to say.

[BillyMac]

Any chance that the NFHS will make some changes to straighten out this mess during the season?

Any chance that the NFHS won't straighten out this mess next year?

What a bunch of knuckleheads.

[Adam]

Doesn't the PowerPoint say "primarily?"

[Camron Rust]

I guess, in a way, it is a LOT like player control fouls. They can be committed by an airborne shooter after player control has ended due to to a try. That is really the manner in which they intended to modify the rule and the way they're telling us to call it.....extend the effect of team control through the throw-in for the purposes of fouls but nothing else....just like the effect of player control for fouls continues until the shooter lands but nothing else about player control is in effect.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I would like to agree with you, the rule book also has a phrase about knowing the INTENT and PURPOSE of a rule. No matter what the printed rule says, the NFHS has published their intent of what they meant it to say.

"Well coach, there was this Powerpoint that they showed us at the officials clinic...." Right.

Intent doesn't work when it's contrary to the written rule. If they chose to straighten it out next year, great. But until then, I enforce the rule as written.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

"Well coach, there was this Powerpoint that they showed us at the officials clinic...." Right.

You know as well as I do that there's a MUCH better chance that they've seen the PowerPoint presentation than there is that they actually know the rule. So that comment would probably work.

Intent doesn't work when it's contrary to the written rule. If they chose to straighten it out next year, great. But until then, I enforce the rule as written.

I would like to agree, but I was overruled.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

You know as well as I do that there's a MUCH better chance that they've seen the PowerPoint presentation than there is that they actually know the rule. So that comment would probably work.

Whether they've seen it or not, I much prefer being able to pull out a rule than give them a link to watch a Powerpoint online.

I would like to agree, but I was overruled.

You can still agree, since they're wrong.

In fact, you had best agree since you drug me into this nonsense.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

"Well coach, there was this Powerpoint that they showed us at the officials clinic...." Right.

Intent doesn't work when it's contrary to the written rule. If they chose to straighten it out next year, great. But until then, I enforce the rule as written.

...then out here in the WILD WEST...you would be wrong.

I agree with Camron...our association has already talked about this. We are instructed to follow the "intent" of the powerpoint.

Soooo...would you still "enforce the rule as written" and go against what your local association wants?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...then out here in the WILD WEST...you would be wrong.

I agree with Camron...our association has already talked about this. We are instructed to follow the "intent" of the powerpoint.

Soooo...would you still "enforce the rule as written" and go against what your local association wants?

I'm going with BBR. Coaches wouldn't know what the spirit or intent of the rule was then or now.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm going with BBR. Coaches wouldn't know what the spirit or intent of the rule was then or now.

No more or less than they would no what the specific wording says.