View Single Post
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 26, 2005, 03:59pm
blindzebra blindzebra is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Daryl, I'm not making anything up. Everything I've claimed is directly out of the NFHS book. I'm a stickler for knowing the real rules and despise those that make up their own.

My assertions about the application are that you can have the opportunity for calling a violation before the ball can be touched....in some cases.

Consider it in slow motion....

If you call the violation for crossing the line by blowing the whistle, then the ball is touched, you can't possibly turn that into a T...the ball is already dead and there is no thrower since there is throwin in progress.

If you recognize the violation before the ball is touched and are blowing the whistle as the ball is touched, the ball is once again dead on the violation that you've chosen to and you can't possibly turn this into a T.

Rules to support my assertion of an option:

9-2-11...The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
6-7-9...The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when...A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs.

If there is identifiable time lapse between the player breaking the plane and touching the ball, the ball will already be dead and there is no longer a thrower or a throwin.

Now, I also agree (and have never said otherwise) that it should be called a T when that defender makes a direct swat at the ball and touches it as a result...all in one action. My point about the option is when B1 has his hand over the line for some time (perhaps to block an anticipated release...which is permitted) and inadvertently makes contact with the ball when the thrower retracts the ball and moves laterally with the ball.

Again, I've never said you shouldn't and can't call the T. Just that there are situations where the violation is more appropriate to the spirit/intent of the rule and is supported by the rule.
Nice attempt to wiggle out.

You said OPTIONS, but what you described is TIMING. 2 very different things.

If they break the plane, whistle, warning or T, that's the rule.

If they break the plane and contact, whistle, T or intentional foul, that's the rule.

It's not an option, if you have not ALREADY called the plane violation, BEFORE the contact you cannot give the lesser penalty, which is what OPTION implies.
I don't consider it wiggling out....more of not clearly/completely stating my argument the first time.

I think I did say from the beginning that I have and will continue to call the T in some cases and that I think it is certainly applicable but that I also think that the rule grant us some ability to use our judegement in some cases.

Even with TIMING you have OPTIONS. If you choose not to call it when the plane is broken then call the T when the ball is later touched, you have chosen the option of calling the T and not the option of the warning which happened first. We often "ignore" violations. (How many of you actually call this violation/warning EVERY time a players finger breaks the plane?)

How often do we see a little bump that we're going to pass on that subsequently turns into a travel or OOB and we go back and get the foul? There is substantial precedent for somethings backing up and getting the first thing that happens.
Yes you are wiggling, and you are doing a VERY poor job of it.

There is not an option within the rules, PERIOD.

That is also an apples and oranges comparison on the bump to violation, why?

Because you are dealing with a foul/no-call on one player and a play-on/violation on the other. That is NOTHING like a single player doing one thing that becomes another.

If B1 bumps A1 and you pass, and then B1 grabs A1 and throws him to the floor intentionally are you going to say, "No it is not an intentional/flagrant foul, because the block happened first?"
Reply With Quote