can somebody please find the reference for how the nfhs stated the arrow should be set in 1923? i would like to include it in my dissertation as to the history of setting the arrow the next time i have a coach argue that we set the arrow wrong. this last tidbit of information will most likely be the deciding factor as to whether or not i change his opinion about our ruling:rolleyes:

Bazinga ...
 

I don't think that they had possession arrows in 1923. Back then, they had jump balls to decide held balls. Of course, I wasn't around in 1923, so we'll have to wait for Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to comment. In 1923 he had already been officiating for several years.

Tony:

First: The only personal opinion that I have given was with regard to the NFHS Rules Committee lack of due diligence.

Second, Part A: Go back and read my two posts. Prior to the early 2000's the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees used Casebook Play/Approved Rulings to define how to handle this play.

Second, Part B: Initially, the Ruling was that A1 simultaneously established Player Control/Team Control and committed a Jump Ball violation. Then, in 1993-94 the NCAA changed it ruling to state that A1 could not simultaneously establish Player Control/Team Control and commit a Jump Ball violation, rather, A1 could only committ a Jump Ball violation. The NFHS changed its Ruling to the NCAA's ruling the following year.

Second, Part C: When the NCAA changed its Ruling in 1993-94 the Ruling stated that the AP Arrow would be set toward Team A's Basket when Team B's Throw-in for the A1's Jump Ball violation when Team B's Throw-in ended. Of course this was in conflict with NCAA Rules which require the AP Arrow to be set when the ball is placed at the Disposal of Team B for its Throw-in. (Remember this ruling when reading the 2002-03 NFHS Casebook Play 4-12-1 SITUATION which was in direct conflict both the rules and the NFHS Casebook Play in Rule 6 which had been in the NFHS Casebook since 1994-95; the 2002-03 Casebook Play 4-12-1 SITUATION was only published that one year and then quietly removed because in was in conflict with the Casebook Play in Rule 6. This was the part where I opined about the lack of due diligence by the NFHS Rules Committee.)

Second, Part D: With regard to the Play being discussed in the Thread the NFHS rules changes made in the early 2000's only codified the Rulng in the Casebook Play in Rule 6 which had been in effect for almost ten years.

MTD, Sr.

Yes, the Abomination Upon the Game which we call Alternating Possession did not exist in 1923. LOL

MTD, Sr.

And Nothing But The Truth ...
 

How can anyone question your response? After all, you were an eye witness.

Did you vote for Coolidge, or Davis?

Mark, when you give us all this information without any rule references or case plays to back it up, then you are offering your opinion, not facts.

Great! Post those case plays or approved rulings so we all can see them!

Couldn't care less what the NCAA did.

If the NFHS changed the ruling, then post the evidence.

There's a recurring theme here...have you figured it out? :)

Couldn't care less what the NCAA did.

If the NFHS changed the ruling, then post the evidence.

Great! Post those case plays or approved rulings so we all can see them!

Tony:

You have been officiating H.S. basketball almost long as I have, and I know you have the NFHS Rules and Casebook books going back to the first years you started officiating basketball. That means you can look easily look them up unless they are up in your attic like mine are (one of these days I will drag them down out of the attic and scan them into the computer). That said, I wouldn't be writing what I am writing if it weren't true.

I have never disputed the rules changes that you said the NFHS made in 2002-03. I have stated that prior to those rules changes the NFHS handled the situation via a Casebook Play. Go back and read your casebook from 1990-91 or earlier to the present and you will see that I am correct.

I may be a cranky old codger, but I do know of what I speak.

MTD, Sr.

Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics (Mark Twain) ...
 

BktBallRef: I can certainly understand your desire for rulebook, or caseplay, references, I also like such references, but your statement seems just a little too strong for me. Information can be factual, not an opinion, without references. References would make the factual information easier to check, but it can still be factual rather than an opinion. Zebras are black and white. That's a fact, not an opinion. I haven't given you any references, but that still makes it a fact. I like zebras better than I like impalas. Now that's an opinion. If I say that zebras are black and pink, that's wrong, it's nonfactual. It's not an opinion, it's just wrong. It can be wrong because I'm ignorant, it can be wrong because I'm lying, it can be wrong because I don't know the color of a zebra and I'm guessing, it can be wrong because I mistyped the statement, it can be wrong because I'm not a native speaker of English and I thought that pink meant white, or it can be wrong because it's fictional, but it's just wrong, and nonfactual, not an opinion.

Just my opinion. Wait? Maybe it's a fact? Or, maybe I'm lying? Are my pants on fire?

No, but Mark puked on your shoes. :eek:

Sorry Mark but I've already researched this issue, back to 1998. That's how I found the 2002 information. I find no case plays and "approved rulings" that would prove your argument.

The fact that you can't produce any proof to back up your posts tells us all everything we need to know.

Thanks for the discussion.

I think there were a lot of years prior to 1998....and can't produce isn't the same as haven't taken the time to produce.

Not finding anything back to 1998 doesn't mean it doesn't exists from prior years. Unless you do an exhaustive search through every single case book and interpretation release since the beginning of the game, you can't anymore say that it doesn't exist than he can say it does.

I have no reason to go back and figure out who is right...I don't particularly care, but your assertion that he's wrong is no more valid than his claim that he is right.