|
|||
Quote:
It would need to be rewritten only so that the interpretation doesn't turn thousands of years of mathematics upside down. Can you name a number that is both less than 0 and greater than 0? That is what it would take to make the interpretation agree with the rule. Quote:
I propose the rule as currently written. It is sufficiently clear.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn. Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials Ohio High School Athletic Association Toledo, Ohio |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
No. 2 points for A and 1 FT for A1.
|
|
|||
Quote:
That said, I agree with Camron. NFHS 9-9-1 says "last touched or touched by the ball IN THE FRONTCOURT." Nowhere within 9-9 will you see the word "status." Aside to Vic: Welcome to the forum!
__________________
Confidence is a vehicle, not a destination. |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
The word status is in the casebook
Quote:
throw-in is deflected by B1; A2 jumps from Team A’s frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. The throw-in ends when it is legally touched by B1. A2 gains player and team control in the air after having left the floor from Team A’s frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt status. As soon as A2 lands in the backcourt, he/she has committed a backcourt violation. The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-3) |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Confidence is a vehicle, not a destination. |
|
|||
I think his only point was that "status" is in the case book, not that he was comparing the two plays.
|
|
|||
Quote:
SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)
__________________
You learn something new everyday ... |
|
|||
In-game, I would almost certainly not call a violation in this situation. Other than some interpretation published seven years ago, the rules just don't seem to support a BC violation here. Adding to that, I don't think any coach or spectator would expect a violation here. No one bats an eye if there's no whistle.
|
|
|||
This seems to be a favorite question chosen by those writing state rules tests. Was on our state test a couple of years ago for about the second or third time since the interp came out a while back.
Not wishing to be over-critical . . . Quote:
Quote:
-- That's not much of a basis for a correct rule interpretation. This . . .. . . was what they published so that no one would be able to say this: But alas, confusion still exists, and perhaps for good reason. I mean if the respected and regarded individuals posting above disagree with each other on this, that should really call for the NFHS to clean up this rule! I wouldn't disagree either way. Just make it simple for all to immediately understand and accept. And give me a good basis for a correct rule interpretation.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call Last edited by Freddy; Thu Dec 11, 2014 at 04:21pm. |
|
|||
The basis has been stated above already. Team A did not touch last in frontcourt, so it can't be a violation. period
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Opinion - Thank You Appropriate? | BballRookie | Basketball | 6 | Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:25pm |
Your opinion...please | DrMooreReferee | Football | 30 | Tue Sep 14, 2010 01:46pm |
How about an opinion: | Tim C | Baseball | 96 | Thu Aug 05, 2010 09:37pm |
opinion, please | Carbide Keyman | Baseball | 6 | Sat May 14, 2005 09:39pm |
I need your opinion | Ref in PA | Basketball | 13 | Tue Nov 19, 2002 09:41am |