Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Unfortunately, this situation is a clear violation of 9-2-10, and just as clearly (IMHO) falls under the penalty for Section 2. Also, the player who catches the throw-in pass while out of bounds has NOT caused the ball to out of bounds -- because the ball was already out of bounds for the throw-in.
So I think we're stuck with a violation of 9-2-10 and a throw-in for A at the original throw-in spot.
|
It may be clear to you, but that is not the ruling I have received from my rules interpreter and from Peter Webb, the national IAABO rules interpreter. Peter is is a former memeber of the NFHS Rules Committee and currently sits on the Rules Committee as the IAABO liaison
Peter's ruling is that the throw-in spot is nearest the OOB violation -- and not a throw-in violation. This is from an email that Peter sent to me on this issue:
Regarding your expressed concern about "Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponent for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot." 9.2.10 ... for whatever it is worth, I believe that 9.2.10 may need to be clarified due to the change that you refer to. However, I believe that the rules clearly indicate that to be out of bounds (have foot on or beyond the boundary line, while attempting to play the ball or to be just standing there playing and touch or be touched by the ball causes the ball to be out of bounds and is a violation. Also, the rules clearly indicate that the throw-in shall be at the spot nearest to where the violation occurred.The thrower-in is clearly not causing/committing the violation. The other player is causing the violation. Rules References: 7.1&.2 (a); 7.5.2; 7.6.1; 9.2.2; 9.3.1 (see penalty)
I understand the root of your concern. I have made note to add the concern to the Rules Committee agenda.
As to why this change was made "without notice," Peter said:
I think that it was an oversight. When some changes are made (this was one of those) there are many other many places within the rules affected. There were many articles that got changed to comply. I think it is simply a housekeeping chore to remedy.
My ruling, if this play comes up in my games this year, will be as Peter instructs.