Differences of Opinion

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Oh golly. I think it was in the early 2000's and the NFHS issued a Pre-Season Rules Interpretation with regard to the Shooter being fouled in the Act-of-Shooting that was completely incorrect. Tony would remember when Dick Knox was the Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. I cannot remember if it was before or after the MichiganHSAA was forced to switch girls' basketball to the Winter.

I emailed both Dick and Mary, and Dick realized the mistake immediately but Mary had to be pushed into accepting the error and a correction was issued before the start of the season.

MTD, Sr.

Found it. Not surprised as my experience with Mary over the past decade has been similar. She didn't really have a solid understanding of the principles upon which the rules were based and this led her to issue several strange or outright incorrect rulings during her tenure as editor.

2001-02 Interps

SITUATION 18: A1 is driving towards his/her basket with B1 following. A1 goes up for a lay-up. B1 goes up as well and commits basketball interference. After the basket interference, but before either player returns to the floor, B1 also fouls airborne shooter A1. RULING: The basket interference causes the ball to become dead immediately. Team A is awarded two points for B1’s basket interference, Team B shall have a throw in from anywhere along the end line. B1’s foul is ignored unless deemed unsporting or flagrant. (9-11; 6-7-9)

Note: The above interp (Situation 18) was revised on the FED website a few days after it was posted to recognize that a foul on an airborne shooter is not ignored just because the ball is dead.

[Dave9819]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Found it. Not surprised as my experience with Mary over the past decade has been similar. She didn't really have a solid understanding of the principles upon which the rules were based and this led her to issue several strange or outright incorrect rulings during her tenure as editor.

2001-02 Interps

SITUATION 18: A1 is driving towards his/her basket with B1 following. A1 goes up for a lay-up. B1 goes up as well and commits basketball interference. After the basket interference, but before either player returns to the floor, B1 also fouls airborne shooter A1. RULING: The basket interference causes the ball to become dead immediately. Team A is awarded two points for B1’s basket interference, Team B shall have a throw in from anywhere along the end line. B1’s foul is ignored unless deemed unsporting or flagrant. (9-11; 6-7-9)

Note: The above interp (Situation 18) was revised on the FED website a few days after it was posted to recognize that a foul on an airborne shooter is not ignored just because the ball is dead.

So in that situation, Team A would be awarded 2 points due to the BI, and Team A would also have the ball for a spot throw-in due to the foul by B1, correct?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dave9819

So in that situation, Team A would be awarded 2 points due to the BI, and Team A would also have the ball for a spot throw-in due to the foul by B1, correct?

No. 2 points for A and 1 FT for A1.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Dave9819

So in that situation, Team A would be awarded 2 points due to the BI, and Team A would also have the ball for a spot throw-in due to the foul by B1, correct?

No, an airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting. Also, oddly, if A1, as an airborne shooter, is the one who commits the foul and the foul occurs after a BI/GT violation by B, it is a PC foul, but A still receives two points. The violation occurred while the ball was live and thus must be fully punished. Though 5-1-2 prevents a goal from being scored if a PC foul occurs, the two points from the BI/GT violation do not constitute a goal, but merely a penalty for a violation. I believe B's throw-in would still be anywhere along the end line, per 7-5-7b (it says B would retain the privilege of running the end line if A commits a violation or CF before the throw-in ends; this PC foul is certainly before the end of the throw-in, but it's also necessarily before the beginning of the throw-in), unless somehow the OOB spot nearest the PC foul were somehow not on the end line, in which case it would be a designated-spot throw-in at that location.