NFHS Casebook Play Confusion.
 

Ladies and Germs (oops, I meant Gentlemen) I submit for your consideration two Casebook Plays from the 2012-13 NFHS Casebook.



Casebook Play 3.4.3 SITUATION C found on Pages 3 and 22 of the Casebook. This Play was just added to the Casebook this year.

CBP 3.4.3C: Starter, A1, has brought the wrong uniform and with 8 minutes on the clock prior to the start of the game, switches with A15 and now is wearing a legal jersey but a new number. With 2 minutes on the clock prior to the start of the game, it is discovered that starter, B1, is wearing a different jersey than indicated in the scorebook. It is confirmed that a wrong number was provided to the official scorer and a change is made to reflect the correct number in the scorebook.
RULING: Both Team A and B are charged with a technical foul for changing a number in the scorebook and will begin the game with one team foul toward the bonus. No free throws are awarded and the game will begin at the point of interruption, which is the opening jump ball.
COMMENT: When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered “approximately the same time.” (R4-S19-A8b; R4-S36- A2c; R10-S1-A2) (See CBP 6.4.1 SITUATION A.)


Casebook Play 6.4.1 SITUATION F on Page 53 of the Casebook. You should also look a CBP 6.4.1A on Page 52 of the Casebook.

CBP 6.4.1F: A team member of Team A is detected dunking about five minutes before the game and a team member of B does the same thing about a minute later.
RULING: The game will start with administration of the technical-foul free throws in the order in which the fouls were called. Team B shoots first followed by Team A. Team A will then be given the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the table. When the thrower of Team A is bounced the ball or it is placed at his/her disposal, the possession arrow will be set pointing toward Team B's basket. (R4-S3; R7-S5-A6a)



I would like to draw your attention to the RULINGS of both CBP 3.4.3C and 6.4.1F as well as the COMMENT of CBP 3.4.3C. You will see that the RULINGS are completely opposite of each other even these two Plays are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

CBP 6.4.1F's RULING is the correct RULING and is also the correct RULING for CBP 3.4.3C. CBP 3.4.3C's COMMENT cannot not be supported by Rule.

I would like to ask the esteemed members of the Forum the following question: How can two identical Casebook Plays have completely opposite RULINGS? Do not bother to answer because it is a rhetorical question. I already know the answer to my question: (1) Nobody in Indianapolis bothers to do any due diligence with respect to research; and (2) whoever wrote CBP 3.4.3C is ignorant of the Rules of Basketball.

Let me add that if the Rules Committee would like all TF's committed during the pregame period to be offsetting TF's as in Fighting Fouls, then that is a rule change I would whole hardily endorse. No one wants to start the game with a series of free throws being shot at both ends of the court. But one cannot just write a Casebook RULING just to fulfill one's wishes. That said, have at it ladies and gentlemen, let the discussion begin.

I don't think they conflict.

The dunks are distinctive unsportsmanlike acts that happen at specific and different times and are penalized in the order of occurrence.

The administrative changes, as I read it, happen for both teams at the same time....effectively just before tip-off or effectively as the clock turned 10:00.

I agree and my logic followed the same thought process.

Administrative TFs are no different than anyother TFs. It is obvious from the reading of CBP 3.4.3C that the TFs occured and very different times and were reported at the time each change was made which means that the foul is a False Double Foul.

MTD, Sr.

Except that the cases say otherwise. So why not just accept what they are saying and go with it?

They are giving us a way to handle multiple administrative T's on both teams with explicit instructions. Doesn't have to make sense but it works for me.

deecee:

The problem with CBP 3.4.3C is that its RULING cannot be supported by Rule. It is just wishful thinking by the person who wrote the Play for it to be considered a Double Foul.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

I'm unclear what you are trying to prove. The case play gives specific instructions on what to do here? If it's not consistent, ok, but also why should I care. There are specific rulings when certain actions occur. I will just follow what they say.

deecee:

Did the TFs in CBP 6.4.1F occur at the approximately the same time? No they didn't therefore they are not a DF but instead consitute a FDF.

Did the TFs in CBP 3.4.3C occur at the approximately the same time? No they didn't therefore they are not a DF but instead consitute a FDF.

The author of CBP 3.4.3C wishes that the TFs happened at approximately the same time but they did not. The author can wish all he wants but the TFs did not at approximately the same time and therefore are not a DF.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Let me reiterate: If the Rules Committee would like all TF's committed during the pregame period to be offsetting TF's as in Fighting Fouls, then that is a rule change I would whole hardily endorse. No one wants to start the game with a series of free throws being shot at both ends of the court. But one cannot just write a Casebook RULING just to fulfill one's wishes. That said, have at it ladies and gentlemen, let the discussion begin.

Mark,

I'm not disagreeing with you and how you read the case plays. I'm just saying that there is explicit instructions on how to handle this and that it doesn't have to make sense. Just for the record "one" did write a casebook ruling :) and got his/hers wishes fulfilled.

hopefully the came with lots of chocolate with macadamia nuts.

Okay, you don't care. Fine. Then why are you continuing to argue the point? :rolleyes:

The comment states, "When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered “approximately the same time.”

It doesn't say this only applies to administrative technicals. I don't care which way they go but there needs to be consistency. If not, then one of these plays is an exception. And we all know the Fed hates exceptions.

The obvious difference, whether it is or should be significant or not, is that one case involves team fouls, while the other involves player fouls.

Read the definition of Double Fouls (both DPF and DTF). There is not distinction between fouls committed and charged to a Player as opposed to fouls committed and charged to a Team. The two fouls in both CBPs did not occur at the approximately the same time and yet the author of CBP 3.4.3C wants the two fouls to be considered as happening at approximately the same time even though that interpretation is not supported by rule.

MTD, Sr.

The main question that needs to be addressed is when do administrative T's occur. It seems that they are indicating that administrative T's effectively occur as the game is about to begin, not when they decide to correct the numbers...and that they are to be treated as a double T.

bktball - I appreciate your flippant response. I'm just trying to figure out why, when there is an explicit ruling, what does a discussion solve?

Will any answer we come up with change anything? I doubt it, it will just create possible confusion as someone who comes on and reads the forum could misapply a rule (that of course is a bit contradictory) that has an explicit ruling based on what happens.

I'm just curios what conclusion we can come up with on this forum that would trump the ruling in the casebook to a very specific set of circumstances whether or not they are contradictory or not is besides the point.

In once case they address double T's for administrative purposes and in the other they address double T's on players.

I'm just trying to keep the facts clear whereas any possible discussion here would only lead to hypothetical solutions and conjecture as the facts here don't leave much wiggle room. Just what I gathered from reading these 2 case plays.

And to your point bktball, I agree that it would be "nice" for them to be consistent and pick one way or another. But until that happens it looks like we have pretty clear direction here, as convoluted and muddy as it may be.

Do You Expect The NFHS Editor To Actually Edit Something ???
 

I hate it when casebook plays seem to contradict an actual rule. When given a choice, I usually go with the casebook play, due to it's specificity. That being said, I see where Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is coming from (You guys can't realize how difficult it is for me to agree, to even partially agree, with Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.), and would prefer that casebook plays always match the actual wording of the rule, as written.

Billy

I know you say that with a smile, :D.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. You didn't wish this bald old geezer Happy Birthday yesterday. You have to start reading the bottom of the Forum Home Page every morning.

Now here is the real question?

Do other official's associations call these admin T's.... I have been in one game where we had a T ... The starting lineup was not in until the National Anthem and the opposing coach was complaining.... We had even talked to the offending team at about 8 minute left and they did not fix it then...


I know we have this rule but practically Im not sure it makes much difference

You can choose to enforce whatever rule you want to. If it comes down to it you don't have a pot to piss in if you get called on it, and you have no argument. Common sense is a rules enforcement's best friend.

Hank Zaborniak of the OhioHSAA.
 

I discovered this discrepency in the two Casebook Plays in early October and had planned to send an email to Hank Zaborniak. For those who do not know who Hank is. Hank was until the middle of October an Assistant Commissioner of the OhioHSAA. When Hank resigned his position with the OhioHSAA he had to step down as Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee even though his term was going to end at the end of the 2012-13 school year. Therefore, I have sent an email to Peter Webb. Peter is the State Basketball Rules Interpreter for the Maine Principals' Association, as well as the State Rules Intepreter for IAABO. Petere has a long association with the NFHS Rules Committee and if there is anyone in the country that can give us the correct ruling it is he.

MTD, Sr.

And neither of you wished this old geezer Happy Birthday last Saturday. BTW - I'm an old geezer but I'm not bald......yet. :o

http://i53.tinypic.com/293eefb.jpg

What does any discussion on this forum solve? It's a point that a longtime member of the forum posted about. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. But it seems that's not the case. So I guess the real question is, why are you still discussing it?

And yes, there's an explicit ruling. In fact, there are two of them and the "Comment" creates a contradiction.

I took it as a rule change being announced with a new case play ruling.
I did not bother to check if the previous ruling was still in the book as MTD did.

I don't care which way the NFHS does it as long as it picks one.

Anybody Want To Buy A Bridge That Connects Manhattan To Brooklyn ???
 

The NFHS has an administrator monitor this Forum twenty-four, seven. He's glued to his computer monitor and reads every word that we post. He forwards our complaints, and recommendations, to the NFHS editor, who carefully weighs our opinions and makes rule changes, caseplay interpretations, and Points of Emphasis, based on what is discussed here on the Forum. Of course, everybody already knows that.

Errata Catcher
 

They also have insiders acting as agents to covertly identify spelling mistakes and poor English grammar in hastily composed responses...

Shhhhh! Be aware! He's lurking and reading.






Sorry :p

Stupid Spell Check ...
 

Is that what the guys in the black helicopters are doing, identifying spelling mistakes, and poor English grammar? I've always wondered about the purpose of their mission. Would it help if I covered my computer monitor with tin foil?

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.48493...83966&pid=15.1

Happy Birthday Mark!!

MTD. Sr.

Bring it back on topic fellas.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. :rolleyes:

if post #25 is on topic, then yes.

Johnny;

As my boys say, take a chill pill. Sometimes we forget and take ourselves too seriously. It will get back on topic soon enough.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I am the one who started this thread and I don't have problems with the posts so far, except with the people who don't agree with me, :D.

I got multiple emails about off topic stuff on this thread. I'm not looking for anything, simply responding to our members.

Thank you.

The case ruling is consistent with the NCAA ruling
"When there are administrative fouls by both teams for violating 10-2.2a, the fouls shall offset with no freee throws awarded to either team."

This seems like a reasonable distinction, if they would word it that way.

Dunking is not an administrative T.

This was brought to our attention yesterday at my association's meeting and per our assignor/supervisor (former D1 woman's official) the situation in CBP 3.4.3C deals with ADMINISTRATIVE T's only. Our state association office and along with the NFHS office confirmed this and also confirmed that they (the NFHS) would amend the wording.

Who pays the price for greatness?
 

Who is the technical foul charged to for dunking? 1) Direct to the player, team count. Direct to the player, indirect to the coach because the player is considered bench personnel, and 1 foul to team count or 3) just a team technical foul that isn't charged to anyone?

See 10 -1 and 10-4 --- which section it's in will give you your answer

Player Tech
Indirect to Coach
One team foul
Start gm with Admin of Free throws
Throw in for offended team

What's This Administrative Technical That You Talk About ???
 

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.

Technical Foul Summary -- page 70

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. :mad:

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.

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.

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.

Definition ??? Examples ???
 

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.