2014 Unannounced Changes? (e.g. Casebook 4.14.1 Sit. D)

Adam

BillyMac wrote
Nice citation Mark T, DeNucci.

In theory I agree with you, but I've always viewed specific casebook plays as "trumping" anything generic in the rulebook. It appears that the fact that the coach was not notified and that the "five foul player" made some free throws is now considered to be a correctable error.

Or, as most of us have assumed, it might just be that someone wrote a case play without reviewing the rules or consulting someone else who had.

Camron Rust

Adam wrote
Or, as most of us have assumed, it might just be that someone wrote a case play without reviewing the rules or consulting someone else who had.

It happens all too often for that to not be the case!

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BillyMac wrote
Nice citation Mark T, DeNucci.

In theory I agree with you, but I've always viewed specific casebook plays as "trumping" anything generic in the rulebook. It appears that the fact that the coach was not notified and that the "five foul player" made some free throws is now considered to be a correctable error.

But not with the CB Play cannot be defended by rule.

MTD, Sr.

BillyMac

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. wrote
But not with the CB Play cannot be defended by rule.

I'm on my way to work, so I don't have time to think of one, and I can't think of one off the top of my head, but aren't there a few casebook plays that are "free standing" and have no rule backing, or may actually "go against the grain" of a written rule?

BillyMac

Adam wrote
...it might just be that someone wrote a case play without reviewing the rules or consulting someone else who had.

That's crazy talk. This is the NFHS. Something like that would never happen.

« Previous Page