New Flag Down Rule

[LaxRef]

Last night I had my first game with the new rules last night, and I don't think I did too badly with the new flag down rule. I palmed my whistle when there was a flag down and didn't blow it dead too early. That is, unless the rules don't mean what they say:

If a defending player commits a foul against an attacking player and an attacking player has possession of the ball, and if the act of fouling does not cause the player in possession of the ball to lose possession, the official must drop a signal flag, make the verbal signal “flag down” and withhold his whistle until:

Twice I had a situation where player A1 had possession in the box, was fouled, and the act of fouling caused him to lose the ball, so I blew the play dead. Players were telling me I should have let play continue.

So, does the rule mean what it says, or not?

[Zeuslax]

That's my interpretation of the rule. Our game yesterday, and the 2 games that I saw last night employed the same procedures.

[laxfan25]

I think the players were correct - once the attack has the ball in the box on a flag down, play continues until the ball leaves the box or goes OOB, the D gains possession or the attack commits a foul, even if the attack has the ball and loses it.
At least that's my understanding!

[LaxRef]

I think the players were correct - once the attack has the ball in the box on a flag down, play continues until the ball leaves the box or goes OOB, the D gains possession or the attack commits a foul, even if the attack has the ball and loses it.
At least that's my understanding!

But the question is, "What if they lose the ball on the initial foul inside the box?" If you read the rule I quoted, it seems to say that the play should be killed.

[Sonny]

I think the players were correct - once the attack has the ball in the box on a flag down, play continues until the ball leaves the box or goes OOB, the D gains possession or the attack commits a foul, even if the attack has the ball and loses it.
At least that's my understanding!

Agree. From everything I've heard, that is intent of the new rule.

[LaxRef]

I think the players were correct - once the attack has the ball in the box on a flag down, play continues until the ball leaves the box or goes OOB, the D gains possession or the attack commits a foul, even if the attack has the ball and loses it.
At least that's my understanding!

Agree. From everything I've heard, that is intent of the new rule.

If that's true, don't you think the wording of the rule I quoted is in direct contradiction to that for the situation I described?

[Sonny]

I understand what you are saying, however I think you are being overly technical in your interpretation of the rule. The rule was explained at the NCAA rules clinic as laxfan25 stated.

Perhaps you should look into filing a rules interpretation for a possible future NCAA rules bulletin update.

[Rob Graff]

We had a game this weekend where an official did blow his whistle stopping play in the situation laxref described - I think it was 2 times. OTherwise that official did a good job in a tough game. So I think it was a rule interpretation issue, not a competency issue.

I didn't expect him to blow the whistle as it appeared contrary to the rule as I understood it. I feel somewhat vindicated in that that the majority of the officials on this thread appear to feel that the whistle should not have been blown.

I think that the confusion evidenced by this though should be resolved quickly if this problem is widespread.

Rob

[LaxRef]

We had a game this weekend where an official did blow his whistle stopping play in the situation laxref described - I think it was 2 times. OTherwise that official did a good job in a tough game. So I think it was a rule interpretation issue, not a competency issue.

I didn't expect him to blow the whistle as it appeared contrary to the rule as I understood it. I feel somewhat vindicated in that that the majority of the officials on this thread appear to feel that the whistle should not have been blown.

I think that the confusion evidenced by this though should be resolved quickly if this problem is widespread.

I guess I just don't understand why we can't write rules that say what they mean instead of going through this every year. The rules clearly say you withhold the whistle unless the foul causes the player to lose possession. If they meant "unless the ball is in the box when the foul occurs," then they should say that.

[Jolly Roger]

I agree that the rule is written with ambiguity (as usual) but let's look at the spirit of the rule.

As written, the rule is intended to maintain the possible advantage for an offended team if they are able to recover possession of the ball in the attack area. This advantage will not be gained if the offended player drops the ball (really, for any reason including - being fouled) prior to entering the attack area.

Why would the rule take away the advantage that it intends, just because the initial foul dislodges the ball while in the attack area?

Unless there's a safety issue I'm not recognizing, I would interpret the rule to mean that any ball down as result of a foul outside the attack area stops play, which I think the text in the rulebook is reminding us. Ball down as result of a foul in the attack area, play continues until the ball leaves the attack area or the defense gains possession.

[LaxRef]

I agree that the rule is written with ambiguity (as usual) but let's look at the spirit of the rule.

As written, the rule is intended to maintain the possible advantage for an offended team if they are able to recover possession of the ball in the attack area. This advantage will not be gained if the offended player drops the ball (really, for any reason including - being fouled) prior to entering the attack area.

Why would the rule take away the advantage that it intends, just because the initial foul dislodges the ball while in the attack area?

Unless there's a safety issue I'm not recognizing, I would interpret the rule to mean that any ball down as result of a foul outside the attack area stops play, which I think the text in the rulebook is reminding us. Ball down as result of a foul in the attack area, play continues until the ball leaves the attack area or the defense gains possession.

While I agree that it's a reasonable way to do it, that doesn't excuse making the rules say the exact opposite. Based on your reasoning, one could also conclude that a loose-ball personal foul by the defense should be a flag-down, slow whistle, right? That's almost the same situation.

Poorly written rules lead to inconsistent officiating. No one should have to guess what the rules intend for such an important and commong situation. (Sometimes you have to guess on weird things that almost never come up, since they can't address everything in the rules, but if it's important enough to address in the rules it should be addressed clearly).

[Jolly Roger]

The rule specifically states that the attacking team must be in possession of the ball

If a defending player commits a foul against an attacking player and an attacking player has possession of the ball, and if the act of fouling does not cause the player in possession of the ball to lose possession, the official must drop a signal flag, make the verbal signal “flag down” and withhold his whistle until:

[LaxRef]

The rule specifically states that the attacking team must be in possession of the ball

If a defending player commits a foul against an attacking player and an attacking player has possession of the ball, and if the act of fouling does not cause the player in possession of the ball to lose possession, the official must drop a signal flag, make the verbal signal “flag down” and withhold his whistle until:

I know. It also specifically states that you only let play continue if the act of fouling does not cause the player to lose possession. Why does it make sense to point to one point of the rule and say, "well, the rule says this, so that's what they mean," and then point to the next part and say, "well, obviously they don't mean that!"?