NFHS Casebook Play Confusion.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

... not an administrative T.

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

I think you're correct, but that seems to be their intent with this wording. Perhaps they'll add a definition of "administrative technical foul" to make them offset, or they can tweak the wording and leave it in the case book since there really aren't that many times this situation will come up.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

Technical Foul Summary -- page 70

[asdf]

This is an instant replay of the Team Control / Throw-In / Backcourt or no Backcourt violation cluster from last year.

What the heck is so hard about seeing the difference between the two infractions and understanding why the ruling in the Case Book is the way it is?

You can play "gotcha" with the FED all you want. All it creates is a waste of time in your local meetings.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

This is an instant replay of the Team Control / Throw-In / Backcourt or no Backcourt violation cluster from last year.

What the heck is so hard about seeing the difference between the two infractions and understanding why the ruling in the Case Book is the way it is?

You can play "gotcha" with the FED all you want. All it creates is a waste of time in your local meetings.

To be fair, the Fed invites it.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Adam

To be fair, the Fed invites it.

While they don't put their thoughts and intentions into the proper words from time to time, it's clear in this instance, just like last year, what they are trying to do.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by asdf

While they don't put their thoughts and intentions into the proper words from time to time, it's clear in this instance, just like last year, what they are trying to do.

I agree with you on this case; but I maintain that their history of poor wording is more than just semantics (see the non-change of the team control rule this year for an example). Sometimes their word choices mean the exact opposite of their stated intent.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Bob Jenkins quoted the NCAA Rule (NCAA R10-S2-A2a, PENALTY) concerning NFHS CBP 3.4.3C. The NCAA Rule is new this school year and specifically defines the Penalty for such a SITUATION. I knew that the NCAA had changed the rule but did not want to muddy the waters regarding the NFHS Casebook Play being discussed because I like the change made in the NCAA Rules.

John Sandlin has posted that his LOA's Interpreter (a former women's D-I official) said that the NFHS CBP 3.4.3C deals only with Administrative TFs and that his StateHSAA and NFHS Headquarters has confirmed his reasoning and that the NFHS is going to "amend" the wording.

The NFHS's attitude is what is frying my tuchus right now!

Dang it! If you want to have the same rule as the NCAA then change the dang rule. DO NOT write a Casebook Play and then make a RULING that cannot be supported by Rule. The NFHS Rules Editor can stand on his head and spit wooden nickels until he is blue in the face but until the Rule is changed the only correct RULING is the Ruling in NFHS CBP 6.4.1F.

John, please PM with you location or email me at DeNucciBasketball (at) Hotmail (dot) com. Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I guess I am going to have to take this up directly with the NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there is no such definition (administrative technical foul) in the NFHS rulebook.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Technical Foul Summary, page 70

Administrative:
Providing rosters; starters; numbers; changes,
additions, etc.; team not ready to start half, TV
monitor, electronic communication; not
occupying assigned bench; more than five
players; excess time-out; violation after team
warning for delay; all players not returning at
same time after time-out or intermission (10-1)

Nice citation bob jenkins. Why don't they actually define "administrative" in Rule 4 - Definitions? That's where it belongs. Plus, a list of examples really isn't a definition.