Jibberish-to-English translations needed
 

New editorial changes this year:

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."

This year's change is in red. First of all, did this need clarification? Were there people who read the original wording of the rule and thought "Oh, since the throw-in team loses the arrow if they violate, they must also lose it if the other team violates"?

Second of all: the arrow is postponed? Really? How is an arrow postponed? I'm amazed that this sentence made it to press. The arrow isn't postponed. However, the subsequent throw-in is no longer an AP throw-in, so the arrow remains pointed toward the throw-in team's basket.

Next, here's the addition to Rule 2-2-4 NOTE: "State associations may intercede in the event of unusual incidents that occur before, during or after the officials' jurisdiction has ended or in the event that a contest is terminated prior to the conclusion of regulation play."

What exactly is this referring to? How would a state association intercede in a game that is in progress? I guess maybe I can see if it's a state playoff game and a member of the state association is on site, and there's a question of eligibility or something? Is a state association now allowed to overrule an official's ruling during a contest?

If a referee forfeits a game, is this saying that the state association is allowed to negate the forfeit and allow the teams to complete the game? If so, my guess is that the state associations weren't waiting for the Fed's approval.

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

I have to say that I'm shocked at how amateurish the rule and editorial changes have been handled over the last two years. It's really sad :(

Anybody Know ???
 

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?

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.

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.

Deja Vu All Over Again (Lawrence Peter Berra) ...
 

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."

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.

This one's on us
 

Yes, guys were getting it wrong, or the table was getting it wrong and the arrow wasn't getting corrected.

A few years ago a football game in W.V. ended with a fight. Officials discussed the identity of players involved for ejection report in the locker room. They discovered new players, not identified on the field, who should've been DQ'd. Created a big hassle and thus language in all rule books. It allows for remedy of unusual events that occur B, D, After the game. Not that the state association can come in during a game and 'fix' things.

Maybe I missed it but does the editorial change specify how long the arrow change is postponed? That seems like a very strange choice of wording.

Until the next quarter, held ball, or other AP. That's the problem. The sentence is terrible.

1) My question about a particular incident occurring was related to the state association intervening, not about the arrow.

2) "Guys getting it wrong" is not a particular incident.

If your comment was intended to be funny or sarcastic, then I apologize for missing it.

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

Thanks to BayStateRef and Jritchie for providing particular examples that may have led to the addition of 2-2-4 NOTE last year.

The note specifically says that the the state association can intercede during the officials' jurisdiction. So I don't think that your comment in red above is true. Additionally, one of the examples already provided in this thread deals with a situation that involved a fight during the game. The state office directed the officials to set aside the fighting penalties and continue the game with the fighting team members still eligible to play.

Scrappy, the WV fight involved an early termination. The officials, in the locker room and thus after their "jurisdiction", decided to eject a couple of players who participated in the fight. The ejections and accompanying suspensions were challenged on the jurisdiction issue. Initially, the court overturned the ejections. They were eventually upheld on appeal, but the fed updated the rule anyway.

That said, this particular change seems more aimed as you suggest, now that I've read it more closely.