NFHS: Setting the Possession Arrow
 

At the jump ball to start the game, and after the initial tap JUMPER B1 catches the ball before it touches the floor or another player. Whistle...violation on Team B.
The ball is given to team A for the throw in and after player A1 touches the ball in bounds the table sets the posession arrow towards team B's basket.
Was this correct?
I thought that this would have been in the case book but I can't find anything. Can anyone help out on this play? A rule/case book reference would be appreciated.

No case play but rule 4-3-3a is worded pretty clearly as to when you set the initial arrow following a jump ball violation.

Fire Up The Flux Capacitor ...
 

Sounds good to me.

This interpretation changed several years ago. Back when the possession arrow was first introduced, such a violation would have given the ball, and the arrow, to Team A, but now that's ancient history. I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm my statement.

Edmund Burke said, “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it”, but he, obviously, wasn't a basketball official.

I think his question is in regards to when the arrow gets set.

...which means the arrow is set when the ball is at the disposal of Team A for the throw-in, not after a player from Team A touches the ball inbounds.

because the throw-in is for the violation...it is NOT an AP throw-in.

True...this is all for purposes of establishing the arrow.

History Lesson Time.
 

First, the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules AP Arrow Rule is identical that includes the wording defining how the AP Arrow is to be initially set. The Rule has never changed since its adoption.

Suprisingly, :eek:, when the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules Committees adopted the AP Arrow Rule neither Rules Committee addressed the situation described in the Original Post directly in the Rules, instead, the Committees adopted identical Casebook Play/Approved Ruling with the same Ruling.


I am not going to climb up into the attic but the Ruling for the OP was:

When B1 caught the ball, B1 simultaneously established Player Control/Team Control for Team B and committed a Jump Ball violation. When B1 established Player Control/Team Control the AP was set to Team A's Basket and then Team A received the ball for a Designated Spot Throw-in as a spot nearest to where the violation was committed.

AND THEN, starting with the 1993-94 season the NCAA changed its Ruling in its Approved Ruling. The Ruling said that B1 could not simultaneously establish Player Control/Team Control for Team B and commit a Jump Ball violation, rather B1 can only commit a Jump Ball violation. BUT, the NCAA did something weird (does that suprise anybody, :p) with its Ruling, rather than state that the AP Arrow will be set toward Team B when the ball is placed at the disposal of Team A for its Designated Spot Throw-in for B1's Jump Ball vioation, which the Rule states, the AP Arrow will be set toward Team B's Basket after Team A's throw-in ends.

The following year, the NFHS changed its Casebook Play Ruling to match the NCAA's Ruling except that it stated when the AP Arrow would be set toward Team B's Basket when the ball is placed at the disposal of Team A for its Designated Spot Throw-in for B1's Jump Ball vioation as per Rule.

So endedth the tonight's lesson.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. It was 12:18amEDT when I wrote this post and I was recovering from a long weekend, which will be the subject of another thread, none-the-less, I just now having time to respond to subsequent posts by others.

Perhaps you're so old that your decades are running together but you're incorrect on your dates. :D

Prior to the 2002-2003 season, the NFHS changed rule 4-12-1 which added an exception an exception to the definition of control by a player when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper.

Previous to this rule change, if a jumper caught the jump ball, the opponent got the ball for a throw-in and the arrow was set to their basket.

With the 2002 rule change, a violation no longer resulted in Team B losing the arrow for the next AP situation.

We discussed this situation on this forum, which is further proof that you're incorrect, since this forum did not exist in 1993. :)

To the OP's question, a case play was added regarding this situation which states the arrow is set after the throw-in ends.

4.12.1 SITUATION: During the jump ball to start the game, jumper A1 catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper. Ruling: A violation by A1. Team B is awarded a throw-in at the nearest spot due to the violation, which constitutes the first possession. As soon as the throw-in by Team B ends, the alternating-possession arrow shall be set towards Team A.

This, of course, is in direct conflict with 4-3-3a, even though that rule has not changed since 2002. The above case play only appeared in the 2002-2003 Case Book.

HERE endeth the lesson.

At the risk of making your head grow any bigger than it is...impressive. ;)

Tony:

With all due respect, my dates are correct (see my P.S. in my OP). I am certain of my dates because I had this violation occur during a pool play game in the 1994 AAU Girls' 12U National Championship in Kenner, LA.

The 1994 AAU National Girls' Championship Tournaments were played using 1993-94 NCAA Women's Rules. I was the R in the game and A1 tipped the jump ball and then grabbed the ball. I was officiating the game with an official who was not a college official and she wanted to set the AP Arrow toward Team B's Basket and then give the ball to Team B for a designated spot throw-in. I correctly instructed the Scorer that the AP Arrow toward Team A's Basket after Team B's throw in, which the Scorer did.

At half time there were two NCAA Division I women's officials waiting for us in our dressing room and they insisted that we had set the AP Arrow incorrectly. When I showed them the difference between the APR in the 1992-93 NCAA Rules Book and the 1993-94 NCAA Rules Book, they were aghast because they had gone an entire school year and did not know that there had been a change in an APR which had not been identified as a change in the rules.

Now, to address your NFHS rules changes. The changes and the dates of the changes that you have stated are correct, but all these changes did, was codify what the Casebook Play had Ruled since the 1994-95 season. The NFHS Casebook Play that you referenced just shows that the people on the NFHS Rules Committee once again failed to do their due dilligence in researching the history of the rule or they would have know about the original casebook plays.

So endth the history lesson.

MTD, Sr.

With all due respect, I don't care what the NCAA rule was in 1994, nor does it have anything to do with the NFHS. Prior to 2002, if a jumper caught the toss, he violated, the opponent got the ball and the AP arrow was pointed toward their basket.

If you have PROOF that this is incorrect, please post the rule and/or case play, not your opinion.

Hope not...7 3/4 now. Any bigger and I'll never find a damn fitted hat!

Good point... because if A violates on the throw-in, it would become B's throw-in and B would retain the arrow -- a situation that many HS timers would probably be unfamiliar with and might screw up.

Here's the NFHS 2002-03 Rule Revision
 

JUMPER CATCHING A TOSS NOT CONSIDERED PLAYER CONTROL (4-12-1): An exception was added to the definition of control by a player when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper. By rule, and previously reinforced in a Case Book situation, if a jumper caught the ball on a jump ball, that player had controlled the ball, but had violated by catching the tap. The committee felt the penalty of awarding the ball and the arrow to the opponent was too severe. This change simplifies the rule by only considering the violation by the jumper catching the tap, resulting in the opposing team receiving the throw-in, and the arrow set toward the team that violated.

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.