3 feet?? Oklahoma vs Kansaa

[Camron Rust]

See the NCAA court diagram which specifies that it is preferable to have 10 feet of unobstructed space but the minimum shall be 3 feet.

If there is less than 3 feet, I'd say that, in absence of anything else, 2-3 grants the referee the right to deal with the improper court to give the thrower the 3 feet indicated in the diagram.

Giving the thrower less than 2 feet and letting the defender also cross the line is just not a situation intended by any interpretation of the rules.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

See the NCAA court diagram which specifies that it is preferable to have 10 feet of unobstructed space but the minimum shall be 3 feet.

If there is less than 3 feet, I'd say that, in absence of anything else, 2-3 grants the referee the right to deal with the improper court to give the thrower the 3 feet indicated in the diagram.

Giving the thrower less than 2 feet and letting the defender also cross the line is just not a situation intended by any interpretation of the rules.

If I was in the mood to get laughed at and/or hung up on, I would ask Curtis if he thinks the officials should have used 2-3 to give OU 3 feet of room.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

If I was in the mood to get laughed at and/or hung up on, I would ask Curtis if he thinks the officials should have used 2-3 to give OU 3 feet of room.

Well, the court diagram indicates there should be 3 feet. There clearly wasn't. The intent/purpose is for the thrower to have a reasonable amount of room for the throwin. What would you suggest?

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, the court diagram indicates there should be 3 feet. There clearly wasn't. The intent/purpose is for the thrower to have a reasonable amount of room for the throwin. What would you suggest?

Again without having looked at the play, I would suggest the following. Issue a warning to the KU player if and when he first violates the throw in plane. Issue a class B technical foul to the KU player if this was not their first violation. Call a FF1 if, as a previous poster suggested, there was contact with the player making the throw in. Issue a class B technical foul if the KU player touched or dislodged the ball while it was on the out of bounds side of the line. What I would not do in an NCAA-M game is prevent the defensive player from positioning himself right up to the sideline. I would not be concerned in the least that the OU player did not have 3 feet of space, and I would certainly not use rule 2-3 to justify the actions of a partner if he did so.

[BigT]

Clearly we have 3 tired referees and it takes a lot of endurance to referee to the end. That is the biggest lesson here.

Maybe this isnt smart yet this is what I do. If I see a kid coming close to that plane I tell him "hands" or "back" because no one likes the call of DG. If he interferes with the pass because he breaks the plane and I dont know for 100% that it will go to the right team I blow my whistle and call it.

I would like to ask honestly if any college/HS officials here hate the call and let these plane violations go and the players get worse and then in 3 OT's they are so used to letting defenders get away with this behavior their brains dont call the obvious fouls and violations. And here it really did cost a team the game.

Its a great lesson and I would love to see them double the staff at the college level. So that we do not have older vets do so many games and getting mentally and physically tired and affecting games. Just my opinion dont squish me... lol

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BigT

like to ask honestly if any college/HS officials here hate the call and let these plane violations go

We can hate calls all we want, but it's not our job to pick which rules we do and don't want to call.

I have no issues giving a verbal warning, but if players don't want to listen then they can have a violation. Normally anything below varsity, I'll throw a line at the coach after reporting it so he also has a chance to tell his players to not get a T.

I have seen case 9.2.10A ignored several times. This is about the only rule regarding boundary-plane infractions that bothers me and it's only because I've noticed quality officials not knowing about it. Or they just claim not to know it and don't want to correctly make a call on a defensive player getting an advantage they shouldn't.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dad

We can hate calls all we want, but it's not our job to pick which rules we do and don't want to call.

I have no issues giving a verbal warning, but if players don't want to listen then they can have a violation. Normally anything below varsity, I'll throw a line at the coach after reporting it so he also has a chance to tell his players to not get a T.

I have seen case 9.2.10A ignored several times. This is about the only rule regarding boundary-plane infractions that bothers me and it's only because I've noticed quality officials not knowing about it. Or they just claim not to know it and don't want to correctly make a call on a defensive player getting an advantage they shouldn't.

Officials ignore the defender knocking the ball out of the hands of the thrower-in?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Again without having looked at the play, I would suggest the following. Issue a warning to the KU player if and when he first violates the throw in plane. Issue a class B technical foul to the KU player if this was not their first violation.

Remember what I posted earlier. A warning - and when I see "warning" I interpret "official warning" - isn't on the menu in NCAAM. B1 just continues to be called for violations until the "repeated violation" threshold of the rule is reached, then a Class B technical is issued. I would think what constitutes "repeated" has been communicated to the NCAAM's officials in the group.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Remember what I posted earlier. A warning - and when I see "warning" I interpret "official warning" - isn't on the menu in NCAAM. B1 just continues to be called for violations until the "repeated violation" threshold of the rule is reached, then a Class B technical is issued. I would think what constitutes "repeated" has been communicated to the NCAAM's officials in the group.

In every NCAAM conference I work, the warning in this case is the violation called for the first offense. Repeated means on the second violation, the player is getting a class B technical foul.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

In every NCAAM conference I work, the warning in this case is the violation called for the first offense. Repeated means on the second violation, the player is getting a class B technical foul.

Works for me. If that's the case for the majority of conferences the men might as well go to the women's wording of the rule.