OOB or TI Violation - An Update

[Freddy]

Situation: A1 releases an endline throw-in pass to A2 who is standing out of bounds off the sideline.
Ruling: Out of Bounds violation or Throw-In Violation?
Result: Throw-in at spot of violation, whichever it is determined to be.

Did some study on it and found this previously published 2007/08 Interpretation:
SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

Has anything changed since then with the relevant rules since that time to reverse that interpretation from making the above situation an OOB violation and not a Throw-In violation?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Situation: A1 releases an endline throw-in pass to A2 who is standing out of bounds off the sideline.
Ruling: Out of Bounds violation or Throw-In Violation?
Result: Throw-in at spot of violation, whichever it is determined to be.

Did some study on it and found this previously published 2007/08 Interpretation:
SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

Has anything changed since then with the relevant rules since that time to reverse that interpretation from making the above situation an OOB violation and not a Throw-In violation?

Why would this be a throw-in violation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Has anything changed since then with the relevant rules since that time to reverse that interpretation from making the above situation an OOB violation and not a Throw-In violation?

Nothing has changed. In fact, the interp you cited *was* the change (I think -- I didn't really go back and check) from the misguided, short-lived "this is a TI violation" interp.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Why would this be a throw-in violation?

Because about thirty years ago it was a throwin violation for not throwing the ball directly to someone on the court.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... the misguided, short-lived "this is a TI violation" interp.

With apologies to General Douglas Macarthur, old rules never die, they just fade away, and sometimes it takes them a long, long time to fade away.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because about thirty years ago it was a throwin violation for not throwing the ball directly to someone on the court.



With apologies to General Douglas Macarthur, old rules never die, they just fade away, and sometimes it takes them a long, long time to fade away.

Glad officials are worrying about 30 year old rules today....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Glad officials are worrying about 30 year old rules today..

I'm not worried about them, I just can't believe that the interpretation hangs around as some type of "myth" thirty years after it's deleted from the casebook.

Those that subscribe to this interpretation aren't as "rule stupid" as many may believe. They just have a fuzzy historical perspective.

Telling them that this was an actual interpretation at one time may make them feel less embarrassed about being wrong.

This old interpretation shows up on the Forum about once, or twice, each year.

When will it die?

[Nevadaref]

Actually, the NFHS Rules Book switched this to a throw-in violation with the ensuing throw-in coming from the original spot about 8-10 years ago. That only lasted about two years and then the NFHS "corrected"/changed the penalty section to rule that this is an OOB violation. It has been OOB ever since.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, the NFHS Rules Book switched this to a throw-in violation with the ensuing throw-in coming from the original spot about 8-10 years ago. The only lasted about two years and then the NFHS "corrected"/changed the penalty section to rule that this is an OOB violation. It has been OOB ever since.

Thank you and all others except for one who responded with the verification I was looking for in order to provide an answer to the official who asked me. That should do it.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not worried about them, I just can't believe that the interpretation hangs around as some type of "myth" thirty years after it's deleted from the casebook. (snip)

When will it die?

In my sport, depending on you ask, the hands are part of the bat.
I have yet to see a bat for retail sale that includes hands.