Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
I have to agree with Smiley, the situations are not one and the same. In 9.2.2c B1 attempts an illegal throw in by not being out of bounds. In this case there is no throw in attempted. I can see delay, I can even see the 5 second count, however I can also see the validity in the argument that the player didn't know that the ball had gone through the hoop. I would be tempted to blow it dead and make them inbound it.
|
The NFHS clarified this rule specifically to stop officials from having to use their own judgement as to how to call this type of play. The rule used to have a gray area in it; that gray area has been completely eliminated. Rule 9-2-2 couldn't be more explicit now.It is a violation. If you call it any other way,you are wrong, by rule!
As BktBallRef said, we spent weeks going over the different ways that this play could have be called under the old, vague language. The FED then changed the language, and it can only be called one way now- whether we agree with it, or not.
|
I don't disagree that it probably at that level should be a violation, but that case book play is not even close to this play. The case book is a throw in from inside the boundary, and a throw in violation, this is just retrieving the ball and heading up court, as if it were a rebound, no throw in is even attempted. It could be an honest mistake, for crying out loud there are times that an official needs their partner to tell them that the ball went through the hoop why would it be hard to believe a player could be in the same boat. With all that said, since I didn't see all the discussions, I will defer to the majority, and 1) hope it never happens and 2) if it does, call it a violation