Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Let me see if I got this straight now:
1)In North Carolina,the official Fed ruling is to issue B with a "delay-of-game"warning,and then give B their throw-in with no violation called.
2)IAABO and Mary Struckhoff(Fed national interpreter) say that it is a throw-in violation by B,followed by a "delay-of-game"warning to B-unless Georgia thinks it's different.
3)Mark T. DeNucci Sr. of IAABO fame says that it is a throw-in violation with no delay-of-game warning ever.
4)We're waiting to hear from Georgia.
The sad part is that Crew ended up right-quote-"your in rome,we are the romans,do as we do"-unquote.
|
From the original positng:
A1 scores a basket, as the ball goes through the net B1 grabs the ball and immediately passes it up court to a fastbreaking teammate. The problem is B1 has never stepped out of bounds. Both feet remained inbounds.....
The answers I have gotten are these:
1.) It is nothing, you blow your whistle and reset the throw in with B1 out of bounds. ( This seems strange since it could occur more than once and it seems there would be a procedure to handle this.)
2.) You immediately start your 5 second count since the ball is at the disposal of B1. Then you could have a 5 second count if they do not bring the ball back and throw it in correctly. ( The problem I see with this is alot can happen in that 5 second count, they could actually score quickly or a foul could be committed, it could really make the game messy.)
3.) You blow your whistle and reset the throw in for B and issue B a delay of game warning for boundary violation. ( Not sure this warning covers this.)
4.) It is a throw in violation. The ball was at B1's disposal, to make a legal throw in the player must be out of bounds, since B1 attempted a throw in it without going out of bounds it is a violation. ( The problem I am being told on this is that there is no rule or case that covers this directly and since B1 never stepped out of bounds the throw in did not begin, there for it cannot be a throw in violation.
Mary Struckhoff has said that (4) is the correct interpretation and Dick Knox has said that (3) is the correct interpretation.
Mary has said that all rules interpretation should go thru the official's state association. I have no problem with that but the interpretation must be an NFHS approved interpretation. We cannot have one state association interpretating a play one way and another state association interpretating a play another way.
IAABO uses NFHS and NCAA interpretations only.
I believe Mary's interpretation of the posted play is correct and Dick's interpretation is incorrect.
Lets look at the play again using NFHS Rules references.
R6-S1-A2b: The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower-in. After a goal (field goal or free-throw) is scored, the ball becomes live when the thrower-in steps out of bounds with the ball in his possession. The ball also becomes live in this situation when the ball sits on the floor and no one from the team eligible to make the throw-in makes any attempt to pick up the ball and make a throw-in or when a player from the team eligible to make the throw-in holds the ball inbounds and makes no attempt to start the throw-in; in these two cases the administering official can start a five second count when the throwing team fails to start the throw-in. In the second case if the player in possession of the ball throws the ball to a teammate as described in the posted play, then the team eligible to make the throw-in has committed a throw-in violation.
Why is this a throw-in violation? R7-S6-A3 and R9-S2-A11 say so. These two rules references say the samething. They refer to the thrower being inbounds before releasing the ball on a pass.
The fact that the thrower throw the ball in a throw-in manner (it is the best description I can come up with) is an indication of the players intent to make a throw-in. This violates R7-S6-A3 and R9-S2-A11. At no time does the delay of game warning can be applied to this play. It is just a simple throw-in violation by the team eligible to make the throw-in. At no time can a delay of game warning ever be made. This situation is not one of the three delay of game situations that require a warning. There is no rule support for a delay of game warning. If a team is constantly making this kind of throw-in violation, just keep calling the violation. If the team is careless enough to continously not pay attention to where the boundary line is it deserves to be called for the violation. Eventually the team will get its act together or the coach will get players in the game that will do it correctly. This is not a situation the calls for a technical foul for continously commiting the same violation. It is just poor play by the team involved.
I have a second more important concern, and that is the apparent belief by some people that state associations are the final authority to make interpretations. As I have stated above, the NFHS is the final authority on rules interpretations. There can be only one interpretations for everybody using NFHS rules, and IAABO uses only NFHS and NCAA interpretations in its interpretations.