Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
We just discussed this in another thread - http://www.officialforum.com/thread/10355
Despite Nevada's creative interp, it is a violation as soon as the player leaves the court on an inbounds play. Clearly if this was an "unauthorized reason" as covered under 10-3-3, there would be no need for 9-2-12. And there can be no delay if you call the initial violation, so the amount of time OOB or where they went while OOB is not relevant.
I think that most agreed that 10-3-3 exists for other situations, but not the inbounds play.
|
Hawks Coach,
Well, now that you have called my interpretation creative
, I have to disagree with your understanding of this rule.
The crux of your opinion rests on it being an immediate violation as soon as the player steps OOB.
The logic of this type of argument has been shown to be incorrect by another throw-in situation.
Many have argued that when a defender steps through the OOB plane during a throw-in and fouls the thrower, it should not be a intentional foul because as soon as the defender breaks the OOB plane with any part of his body this constitutes an immediate throw-in violation and a warning for delay should be called.
This line of reasoning has been shot down by casebook play 10.3.12 Situation C. The same is true for reaching through and slapping the ball; just look at the casebook plays above this one.
Basically, you have to see the whole play in order to make the proper call. If this means you hold the whistle an extra couple of seconds to see what the player does after going OOB, fine.
Look again at the actions of A2 in Larks's play:
Quote:
Originally posted by Larks
A2 is in the paint. A2 proceeds to run OOB Behind A1 and returns in play near the sideline ready to receive a pass.
|
Sure seems a heck of a lot like casebook play 10.3.4 Situation B to me! The call there is a T.
Therefore, I believe that the proper call for Larks's play under NFHS rules is a technical foul on A2 for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.
The violation is there to cover situations like 9.2.9 and when a team throws an OOB pass between teammates when it doesn't have the right to run the endline.
On a final note, Hawks Coach, I do value your opinions, and since you have shown yourself to be such a knowledge seeking and conscientious person I have taken the extra time to include clear rule citations in this post, which I hope will convince you to reconsider your thoughts on this play. Obviously, I know that you will take the time to check these casebook plays.
I look forward to your response.