VIDEO REQUEST - North Florida vs FGCU

[MD Longhorn]

Someone please explain to me why we're inventing our own rulings that suit ones own personal sense of justice, when those rulings contradict a very specific and identical case play.

TPTB have told us very explicitly what they want called here. Why diverge?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by md longhorn

someone please explain to me why we're inventing our own rulings that suit ones own personal sense of justice, when those rulings contradict a very specific and identical case play.

Tptb have told us very explicitly what they want called here. Why diverge?

+1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Someone please explain to me why we're inventing our own rulings that suit ones own personal sense of justice, when those rulings contradict a very specific and identical case play.

TPTB have told us very explicitly what they want called here. Why diverge?

I think the distinction is being made whether A1 has the ball. There seems to be a few points of possible violation here.

1. The ball is bouncing around.
2. A1 has the ball but the throw in has not started (ball is still dead).
3. A1 has the ball and the throw in has started (ball is live).

1 and 3 are obvious. 1 is a DOG, 3 is an immediate TF and a DOG warning.

The question is on 2, which is different than the case play quoted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think the distinction is being made whether A1 has the ball. There seems to be a few points of possible violation here.

1. The ball is bouncing around.
2. A1 has the ball but the throw in has not started (ball is still dead).
3. A1 has the ball and the throw in has started (ball is live).

1 and 3 are obvious. 1 is a DOG, 3 is an immediate TF and a DOG warning.

The question is on 2, which is different than the case play quoted.

#1 still has two options, delaying of game or prevention of the ball becoming live. Both rules exist with no clear indication of when it moves from the warning to the immediate T.

[bucky]

A delay of game occurs during a dead ball. In the video, I consider it to be a live ball and thus a T. The scenario of a player having the ball with two hands and walking towards the endline is also a live ball IMO so I would go with a T. There was also the scenario of the dead ball being knocked into the hallway. IMO, that is too egregious to call a DOG and would go with a T. I would consider it unsporting, just as I would if the player grabbed the dead ball and punted it clear across the gym. It might fit the DOG case but IMO, it also fits the player technical foul rule (unsporting).

I think a lot of it comes down to when you think the ball is live and the extent of the act.

See case 6.1.2 sit B for some wording that somewhat describes an official's action in this/these types of scenarios after a goal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

The scenario of a player having the ball with two hands and walking towards the endline is also a live ball IMO so I would go with a T.
...


I think a lot of it comes down to when you think the ball is live and the extent of the act.

See case 6.1.2 sit B for some wording that somewhat describes an official's action in this/these types of scenarios after a goal.

So, you're starting the 5 count before the player gets OOB with the ball and in a position to make a legal throwin?

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by bucky

A delay of game occurs during a dead ball. In the video, I consider it to be a live ball and thus a T. The scenario of a player having the ball with two hands and walking towards the endline is also a live ball IMO so I would go with a T. There was also the scenario of the dead ball being knocked into the hallway. IMO, that is too egregious to call a DOG and would go with a T. I would consider it unsporting, just as I would if the player grabbed the dead ball and punted it clear across the gym. It might fit the DOG case but IMO, it also fits the player technical foul rule (unsporting).

I think a lot of it comes down to when you think the ball is live and the extent of the act.

See case 6.1.2 sit B for some wording that somewhat describes an official's action in this/these types of scenarios after a goal.

I don't think that when the ball is considered live is a matter of opinion. If he's got the ball and is headed OB at a reasonable pace to make the throw-in, then it isn't live. Didn't we cover that in this thread like 2 pages ago?

bucky... ducky.... Nah, couldn't be.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I don't think that when the ball is considered live is a matter of opinion. If he's got the ball and is headed OB at a reasonable pace to make the throw-in, then it isn't live. Didn't we cover that in this thread like 2 pages ago?

bucky... ducky.... Nah, couldn't be.....

It's not live until he's actually out of bounds and engaged in the throw-in, particularly if he's moving at a reasonable pace.

If the team or player is delaying, then we can start it earlier than that, but that's a rarity (significantly less than once per game).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's not live until he's actually out of bounds and engaged in the throw-in, particularly if he's moving at a reasonable pace.

If the team or player is delaying, then we can start it earlier than that, but that's a rarity (significantly less than once per game).

Exactly.

A player holding the ball inbounds is not able to make a legal throwin from that inbounds location so it is not yet at their disposal for a throwin. It is available for a throwin only when it has been taken to a spot where a throwin can be legally made. It is also to be considered to be available and at their disposal when sufficient time has been allowed to do so but the team/player is delaying.

Considering it live as soon as a player grabs the ball, and thus starting the 5 count, is penalizing the throwing team by reducing the actual time they have to make the throwin below the full 5 seconds. If you are not starting the 5 count, however, you have not considered the ball live.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I don't think that when the ball is considered live is a matter of opinion.

We will have to agree to disagree. It isn't a matter of opinion on a jump ball or a FT but it certainly is on a throw-in. Maybe not in your example but there are lots of other examples (I provided at least 2) that would prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Makes sense. Ignore the caseplay that addresses this almost exactly... and rule differently because a nearby door happened to be open.

Thanks for proving my point.


Case 4.42.3 also assists us. To me the main line is "...the throw-in count begins when the official determines B1 has had ample time to secure the ball, it need not be in B1's possession." Obviously this is for a situation involving a player causing his own delay but my point is that each throw-in essentially starts when an official makes that determination and there are countless situations where no two officials would agree on when the throw-in should start.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bucky

A delay of game occurs during a dead ball. In the video, I consider it to be a live ball and thus a T. The scenario of a player having the ball with two hands and walking towards the endline is also a live ball IMO so I would go with a T. There was also the scenario of the dead ball being knocked into the hallway. IMO, that is too egregious to call a DOG and would go with a T. I would consider it unsporting, just as I would if the player grabbed the dead ball and punted it clear across the gym. It might fit the DOG case but IMO, it also fits the player technical foul rule (unsporting).

I think a lot of it comes down to when you think the ball is live and the extent of the act.

See case 6.1.2 sit B for some wording that somewhat describes an official's action in this/these types of scenarios after a goal.

Makes sense. Ignore the caseplay that addresses this almost exactly... and rule differently because a nearby door happened to be open.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think the distinction is being made whether A1 has the ball. There seems to be a few points of possible violation here.

1. The ball is bouncing around.
2. A1 has the ball but the throw in has not started (ball is still dead).
3. A1 has the ball and the throw in has started (ball is live).

1 and 3 are obvious. 1 is a DOG, 3 is an immediate TF and a DOG warning.

The question is on 2, which is different than the case play quoted.

Sorry. My comment was in relation to chap's play where he ruled incorrectly and two others immediately agreed with his incorrect ruling, even though the right ruling and caseplay were immediately posted. I should have been more specific.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sorry. My comment was in relation to chap's play where he ruled incorrectly and two others immediately agreed with his incorrect ruling, even though the right ruling and caseplay were immediately posted. I should have been more specific.

Refer to my comment above you about why you are not exactly as correct as you think you are.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Refer to my comment above you about why you are not exactly as correct as you think you are.

I've given you more credit than you deserve, sir.

Please re-read both case plays and take into account who is ahead.