The Official Forum - From IAABO Dec. 2011 Newsletter:

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - From IAABO Dec. 2011 Newsletter: (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/85095-iaabo-dec-2011-newsletter.html)

The problem is, the NFHS changed the rule in order to try to make it stay the same. It didn't work, so they gave us the interps through the power point that some people have seen.

They need to either change it back (and perhaps go with scrapper's suggestion and simply change the penalties for fouls by the throw-in team) or acknowledge the rule has changed and roll with it. As it is now, the rule runs counter to their expressed intent.

From the Pre-Season Guide:

Play 1: A1 has the ball fro a throw-in at the division line. Team B is in the bonus. Before the ball is released, A3 is whistled for an illegal screen on B3.

Ruling 1: The foul on A3 is a team-control foul. Team B will receive the ball spot closed to where the foul occurred. No free throws will be attempted.

Why do they tell us the foul occurred before the ball is released?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjones1 (Post 808606)

Not necessary, just reinforces that it is a team control foul while the ball is still in the thrower's hands.

We all know what they wanted to change - it's easy for me to call it that way and not give a damn about what's written in the book. Why not everyone else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 808544)

A1, from the BC, passes the ball to A2, standing in the FC. A2 muffs the pass, and the ball rolls to the BC where it's first touched by A1.

Doesn't meet the letter of the new wording, but it's still a violation.

Isn't that covered in 9-9-2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 808653)

it's easy for me to call it that way and not give a damn about what's written in the book. Why not everyone else?

I don't mean to be a jerk, but. . . because it's not written in the book. The rules are what's in the book. The rules are not made up of completely contradictory statements made in an addendum, IMHO.

It's not like what happened in the NCAA, with the elbow rule. The rules committee actually got together, voted on and passed a new rule; but the rule couldn't be added to the book because the change was instituted between printings. In this case, they made everyone aware of the change and told us that it actually would be in the book in the next year.

In the NFHS case, they got together, voted and passed a new rule. They included it in the book. Then without getting together and voting, they told us that the rule actually meant something very different, which is not included in the book.

In most cases, we're paid to enforce what's written in the book. So it would be nice if our rules were actually in our book.