Jibberish-to-English translations needed

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Does anybody know if there was some particular incident that made somebody think this was a needed editorial change?

There always is a particular incident that leads to changes like this. I wonder what this incident was.

[jritchie]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There always is a particular incident that leads to changes like this. I wonder what this incident was.

I know here in Ky there were two different incidents where the coaches took their teams off of the floor and it was frowned upon highly by the higher ups in the state association. Gave out several fines, suspensions, etc. for this.

also i can see them getting involved in cases where there are fights before the game or after the game where the officials jurisdiction hasn't started or was over when these events happened, I believe we had one of those too.

But it's not like the state associations need a rule to get involved in rulings over something that happened at a particular game, usually they just take it upon themselves anyways no matter if they should or not!

And definitely agree on the word, POSTPONED, when talking about not changing the arrow. Seriously, they couldn't of came up with a better word?

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There always is a particular incident that leads to changes like this. I wonder what this incident was.

There was an incident in a Pennsylvania state playoff game a couple of years ago where there was a fight in the first quarter, with virtually every player and every team member involved in the fight. By rule, every person involved in the fight was disqualified for the rest of the game.

But the state association, which was at the site, decided that it wanted a winner determined on the court, and not a double forfeit. So it ruled that only one or two of the original fighters were disqualified, and the game was to continue.

I suspect there are other, similar examples.

[Adam]

There's a similar change in football, due to a suspension that was initially dismissed in court due to a lack of wording giving the officials post game administrative jurisdiction for actions on the field.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Wording giving the officials post game administrative jurisdiction for actions on the field.

Didn't the NFHS add wording like this to the basketball rules last year?

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Didn't the NFHS add wording like this to the basketball rules last year?

Yes. As a Note to 2-2-4.

The language in the note that Scrapper1 asked about was inserted last year.

Some might say the language giving officials "clerical authority" through the completion of reports, etc. is in response to the Massachusetts handshake "rule."

[Stat-Man]

Rule 6-4-5: "The opportunity to make an alternating-possission throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating-possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow. If an opponent commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is postponed."

Would this wording be better (and still true):

The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. The throw in-team will not lose the possession arrow if:

• Either team fouls during the throw in, or
• The opponent commits a violation during the throw-in.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Yes. As a Note to 2-2-4.

The language in the note that Scrapper1 asked about was inserted last year.

Absolutely correct. So I wonder why the part that I quoted in my original post is highlighted as new in this year's book? Another editorial snafu?

I remembered the "clerical" part of the note from last year's changes, but the state association "interceding" part didn't ring a bell.

Strange.