3 feet?? Oklahoma vs Kansaa
 

Is this a real rule? If so, how do you miss this in such a big game as a NCAA official??? For those that missed the game.
Throw in from sideline. Oklahoma throwing in and Kansas defender maybe gives in 3" for the throw in and pass gets defelected to Kansas.

This is an issue at these old great courts, Phog Allen, Kameron Indoor Arena. There is no space for the inbounder to take a step back to create space to pass.

Needed to be looked at for years.

It was badly administered but he had more than 3". His shoes were longer than that. The 3' is not measured face to face but from the obstacle behind the thrower (the table). The thrower should have a total of at least 3 feet of space. In this case, he had about 18", maybe 24". On top of that the defender was across the line that was there.

The official should (and did) back the defender up an appropriate amount to allow for the throwin but did nothing when the defender clearly violated the temporary space that had been established.

Raw deal for OU to lose on that.

Where is this 3 foot depth rule? Rule 7-6.8.b states "The designated spot shall be 3-feet wide with no depth limitation." That is the only mention of three feet.

The opponent is allowed to be right up on the line. Rule 9-4.3 illustrates the penalty for repeated infractions: "The opponents of the thrower-in shall not have any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in a CLASS B technical foul."

BoBo is right on when saying that these old arenas have a big issue. The Oklahoma player looked as the ball in his hands had crossed the boundary (still in his hands) when the Kansas player crossed the boundary/touched it. It's hard to say whether or not he was over the line while the Oklahoma player had the ball behind the boundary line. I'd say it's almost impossible given the lack of space that the Oklahoma player held the entire ball behind the boundary line. It's a big issue, but the refs looked to get the call correct, despite what pundits on ESPN say. It *looked* like a bad call because they were on top of each other - almost no playing court has a OOB area that narrow.

EDIT: should add that NCAA rule is that the opponent may not cross boundary plane until ball has crossed boundary plane while I believe NFHS is that the opponent may not cross boundary plane until the thrower-in has released the ball.

NF Rule 1-2-2 implies the 3-foot protocol on a throw-in (If, on an unofficial court, there is less than 3 feet of unobstructed space outside any sideline or end line, a narrow broken line shall be marked on the court parallel with and 3 feet inside that boundary. This restraining line becomes the boundary line during a throw-in on that side or end, as in 7-6. It continues to be the boundary until the ball crosses the line). The way the rule is written if teams are playing on an 84' x 50' court with at least 3 feet of unobstructed space outside all boundaries a defender on a throw-in would have to - by default - be at least 3 feet away from the thrower as long as the thrower didn't move forward.

NCAAM and NCAAW don't have this language in their codes.

Got it. Thanks JetMetFan. Had heard the 3 foot rule for NFHS but couldnt find it at all in the NCAA rule or case books. Think the restraining boundary is to be 6 feet in NCAA if possible but could not find a mention of any protocol changes if not. Was wondering tonight if old courts like Allen or Cameron had their own "ground rules" that weren't publicized when refs would back players up before throw-ins (or they could have just been backing them up to not cross the boundary plane).

Remember, the restraining lines are behind the end lines. They don't have anything to do with making a throw-in. They're to keep non-playing personnel away from the court.



My guess is the 3-foot courtesy in NCAA probably began because of courts like Cameron and those at other older on-campus facilities (such as the old Catholic schools that Al McGuire used to call "confessional boxes" because they were so tight).

Yikes!! I do not know what the college rule is, but this can't be legal.

KU's Frank Mason III Was Ridiculously Close to OU's Buddy Hield on Crucial Steal | Bleacher Report

For high school plays that are similar. No relevance to college.


7.6.4 SITUATION C:

The sideline is very near the spectators leaving little space out of bounds for A1 to make a throw-in. As a result, the administering official has directed B1 to move back a step to give the thrower some room. As soon as the ball is handed or bounced to A1, B1 moves right back to the boundary line in front of A1.

RULING: It is a violation by B1 and will also result in a warning for Team B which is reported to the scorer and to the head coach. Any subsequent delay-of-game situation or noncompliance with the verbal order will result in a technical foul charged to Team B. (10-1-5c)

Here is what NCAA players other than the thrower CANNOT do on a throw-in...

NCAAW also has this...

The main difference between the two codes is an opponent crossing the boundary line during a throw-in is NOT among the recorded delays in NCAAM. It IS one of the recorded delays in NCAAW, meaning a warning can be issued.

I don't understand why people are posting NFHS rules and case plays since this was an NCAA game.

This is illegal in a HS game. Nothing posted (yet) tells me that it is in an NCAA game.

Sure it does. JetMetFan posted the NCAA men's rule, which includes

When the defender stepped on the OOB line while harassing the thrower, he committed a violation.

The point of reference of most posters is based on the NF rules so we tend to default to the "3-foot space allowance" specified in the NF; however, jetmetfan has posted the relevant NCAA rule 9-4-2, which is a useful start to analyzying this sitch.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I also believe this is a coaching thing too. Maybe not in this exact situation, but similar.

Why do I as a ref have to point on to a player throwing the ball in that he/she can step back further to give yourself space. They are like, wait, what? I can? Are you sure? Yes step back and then you'll have plenty of space to throw in.

Why don't coaches make this very well understood to their teams. Also to not reach over the line during throw ins etc. It's just so frustrating that the players have coaches that are not explaining and teaching these basics.

Hard to back up when you butt is against a table.