3 feet?? Oklahoma vs Kansaa

[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?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

If it interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in. I never said they ignored the specific play you stated.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dad

If it interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in. I never said they ignored the specific play you stated.

Originally Posted by Dad

...

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.

9.2.10 SITUATION A:

A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

9.2.10 SITUATION A:

A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction.

Ahh, sorry, my bad. I only remember the case for the comment and didn't recall the start of it. I was referring to the five seconds or less in the game while the clock is running. In which case you let a violation go unless it interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in. Then it's a T whether there was a previous violation or not.

[rockchalk jhawk]

So when I saw this: Controversy brewing over final Oklahoma inbounds play - ESPN Video I came straight here to ask the rules gurus...

And before this thread goes off on another tangent, lets ignore the fact that Mason was probably breaking the throw-in plane. Not contesting that.

Where in the rules book does it say that Mason has to give Hield three feet in that situation?

And ignore my screen name. I'm a referee first and a fan second.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockchalk jhawk

So when I saw this: Controversy brewing over final Oklahoma inbounds play - ESPN Video I came straight here to ask the rules gurus...

And before this thread goes off on another tangent, lets ignore the fact that Mason was probably breaking the throw-in plane. Not contesting that.

Where in the rules book does it say that Mason has to give Hield three feet in that situation?

And ignore my screen name. I'm a referee first and a fan second.

The specifications for a legal court require that there be at least 3 feet of space outside of the boundary.

Since that situation is not all that uncommon at the HS level, the HS rules cover the situation by instructing the official to designate a temporary boundary line 3' inbounds from the actual boundary line that remains in effect until the ball crosses that line. All throwin rules apply to the new boundary line until such time.


The NCAA rules seem to be silent on what to do when there isn't 3-feet of space outside of the boundary.


There are two possibilities as far as I can tell:

Either there is nothing that can be done....which means the official doesn't even have the authority to back the defender away from the line even at the start of the throwin. That also implies that if the space is so small that the thrower can't fit his/her feet in the space that is available OOB without also being inbounds, no legal throwin would be possible and you'd be in an infinite loop as each team kept violating their throwin.

Or, there is an implied expectation that the official can back the defender up to start the throwin and give the thrower the intended amount of space. If so, that also implies a temporary boundary for the purposes of the throwin that remains in effect at least until the throwin is released.


I suggest that while the rules do not state what to do at all when the 3' minimum space OOB is not met, that gives the R the authority to use 2-3 and decide what to do. Doing nothing really doesn't make any sense nor fit with the spirit of the game. As such, designating a temporary boundary line that persists until the throw is released is the only resolution that makes any sense.