Differences of Opinion

[La Rikardo]

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.

[Freddy]

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 . . .

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

In-game, I would almost certainly not call a violation in this situation.

-- That's not much of a basis for a correct rule interpretation.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

I don't think any coach or spectator would expect a violation here.

-- That's not much of a basis for a correct rule interpretation.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

No one bats an eye if there's no whistle.

-- That's not much of a basis for a correct rule interpretation.

This . . .

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

...some interpretation published seven years ago...

. . . was what they published so that no one would be able to say this:

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

...the rules just don't seem to support a BC violation here.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

And give me a good basis for a correct rule interpretation.

The basis has been stated above already. Team A did not touch last in frontcourt, so it can't be a violation.

period

[Nevadaref]

How's this Freddy?
That situation is not a violation BY RULE.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How's this Freddy?
That situation is not a violation BY RULE.

If your response had a "Like" button I would click on it.
But those who answered accordingly on our state's rules test got it wrong.

If I can't point to the rule or case play in the current year's books, I'm not following it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

If I can't point to the rule or case play in the current year's books, I'm not following it.

There are a lot of important, but very specific, caseplays out there. It's one thing for an inexperienced official not knowing about them, but it's another thing for an experienced official, who knows the specific case play, to intentionally ignore these one-time-published-somewhere-official caseplays.

I recall that it took several years for the prohibition against lights in shoes to show up in the rulebook and/or casebook, but once it showed up as an annual interpretation, with no other rulebook, and/or casebook citation, I enforced it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

If I can't point to the rule or case play in the current year's books, I'm not following it.

The interpretations just don't disappear after a given year. And there's a list every season -- they don't all end up in the rule/case book.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There are a lot of important, but very specific, caseplays out there. It's one thing for an inexperienced official not knowing about them, but it's another thing for an experienced official, who knows the specific case play, to intentionally ignore these one-time-published-somewhere-official caseplays.

I recall that it took several years for the prohibition against lights in shoes to show up in the rulebook and/or casebook, but once it showed up as an annual interpretation, with no other rulebook, and/or casebook citation, I enforced it.

Originally Posted by Rich

The interpretations just don't disappear after a given year. And there's a list every season -- they don't all end up in the rule/case book.

Thanks for your advice guys!