Two wierd plays

[Camron Rust]

Essentially, I interpret the "location" of the non-designated-spot throw-in to be bound by the sidelines extended. It says "outside the endline" and "along the endline". I don't believe the endline extended is along the endline. Once the ball goes beyond the painted endline, it is beyond the permitted pass allowed.

In case I'm wrong....I'm certainly not blowing the whistle for a do-over as some have suggested. It's either a violation (as I suggest) or the count continues.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

When I talked about a technical foul, this is what I was thinking of. Which I did point out by saying "If he went out to avoid a screen or get clear". I do think the better call would be the violation for having more than one person OOB during the throw-in. It solves the problem without being overly confrontational.

You save the T's for the cases where a player obviously gets an unfair advantage by the act of going OOB.On defense,an example might be a defender going OOB to avoid a legal screen set right on the endline,and then coming back in to block a shot or steal the ball.On offense,the play in the casebook where the player throws the ball in,and then goes down the endline OOB before coming back in and spotting up for a shot when they swing the ball around to him. You warn if you can,but if they do gain an advantage,a warning isn't good enough imo.You gotta call it,or you're screwing the other team by allowing an illegal play and the accompanying illegal advantage.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Essentially, I interpret the "location" of the non-designated-spot throw-in to be bound by the sidelines extended. It says "outside the endline" and "along the endline". I don't believe the endline extended is along the endline. Once the ball goes beyond the painted endline, it is beyond the permitted pass allowed.

In case I'm wrong....I'm certainly not blowing the whistle for a do-over as some have suggested. It's either a violation (as I suggest) or the count continues.

Ya know what? There is nothing you can say that will convince me BY RULE you are correct. But after talking to some very wise people I've decided you're mostly right. There are certain things I'm not gonna allow (like A1 chucking the ball up into the 10th row) and only under very limited conditions will I blow for a do-over (like A2's little brother decides to get into a play I would otherwise let go). But this discussion has been good for me, because at least if I have this play I'll confidently call it and I'll stand by it even when my supervisor calls me at midnight wanting to know what the hell happened in my game. But I doubt I'll start tearing apart what "outside the endline" vs "along the endline" means.

Anyway, good mid October discussion!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You save the T's for the cases where a player obviously gets an unfair advantage by the act of going OOB.On defense,an example might be a defender going OOB to avoid a legal screen set right on the endline,and then coming back in to block a shot or steal the ball.On offense,the play in the casebook where the player throws the ball in,and then goes down the endline OOB before coming back in and spotting up for a shot when they swing the ball around to him. You warn if you can,but if they do gain an advantage,a warning isn't good enough imo.You gotta call it,or you're screwing the other team by allowing an illegal play and the accompanying illegal advantage.

I agree with you, and that was the picture that was conjured up in my mind when I first read the play. Later, I realized that the other interpretation -- of someone stepping out of bounds to receive a pass -- was probably closer to the real situation, and thus the violation is the better call.

Looking back at the original description of this play, I can't quite tell what was happening. Depending on what happend next, after what Nevadaref described, either call could make sense. He doesn't say whether there was some good defense in the key, waiting to intercept the pass. Or whether A2 stepped back in bounds and received the pass, or whether he stayed out of bounds and received the pass, or what.

Hey, Nevada, fill us in, will ya?

[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 9th, 2003 at 10:46 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

Later, I realized that the other interpretation -- of someone stepping out of bounds to receive a pass -- was probably closer to the real situation, and thus the violation is the better call.

[/B][/QUOTE]I don't know whether I made myself clear before.I agree completely with the above.You call the violation before they get an illegal advantage,as above.Call the T after they get an illegal advantage.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
...this discussion has been good for me, because at least if I have this play I'll confidently call it and I'll stand by it even when my supervisor calls me at midnight wanting to know what the hell happened in my game. ...Anyway, good mid October discussion!

That is exactly why I chose to start this thread, Dan. In fact, I even said that we have had a discussion before about the endline stuff on this board and it was that discussion, which helped me make up my mind about how I understand the pertinent rules and what I will call if the situation ever comes up. Well, for me it did.

The reason the description of the plays left off where they did is that it was at that point that I blew the whistle in each case.
The calls were:
Play #1 Technical foul on the teammate of the thrower for leaving the court. I believe that this was the proper call since he ran OOB almost the entire width of the court. When I reported the T his coach tried to say that he was forced OOB, to which I responded, "Then why did he run all the way across the gym OOB?" He put his hands on his head, said, "I don't know," rather sheepishly and sat down.
After the game I chatted with my partner about the play and told him that I probably could have gotten away with calling a violation for having more than one player OOB during a designated-spot throw-in, but I believed that that call would not have been appropriate for what this player did. I think that the violation is for cases when a teammate steps out next to the thrower and he hands him the ball or when the team runs an endline pass play not after a goal is scored. For me it is a difference between simply stepping OOB and standing there or running a fair distance OOB.
Play #2 Five second violation. I did what Chuck said, and just kept counting. When I reached five the kid had chased down the ball, but still hadn't released it on a throw-in pass. After studying the rules due to our last discussion on this, I decided that no rule prohibits the ball from hitting a wall, bleacher, fan, or cheerleader, while teammates are passing OOB. Most of the articles that are in 9-2 don't apply because they are written for either a throw-in pass, which this is not, or a designated-spot throw-in. For example, art.1 is about leaving the designated-spot, and we know that a player certainly can do this after a goal, since he could set the ball down OOB run onto the court and then come back and pick it up again or have a teammate come and get it. And art.2 is clearly talking about a throw-in pass, not a pass between teammates who are OOB.
The points raised by Camron Rust, and Hawks Coach, etc., are good and I handle them this way: the rules say the throw-in must be made from any point outside the endline. (7-5-7) However, there is no requirement that the ball or a player must remain behind the endline (between the sidelines) prior to the throw-in pass being made. So if a team chucks the ball into the tenth row, it can go get it, but must bring the ball back to any point outside the endline before making the throw-in pass. They just can't pass it in from up there. Also, I believe that if a player runs into the stands who is not chasing down the ball, but just running up there for a pass or as a decoy, he should be hit with a T for leaving the playing court.

I hope that others learned from thinking about these plays, even if they decide not to call them as I do. The point is to be prepared for them.
PS Black scored after the five second violation and forced overtime, and then White eventually won by two.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
The points raised by Camron Rust, and Hawks Coach, etc., are good and I handle them this way: the rules say the throw-in must be made from any point outside the endline. (7-5-7) However, there is no requirement that the ball or a player must remain behind the endline (between the sidelines) prior to the throw-in pass being made. So if a team chucks the ball into the tenth row, it can go get it, but must bring the ball back to any point outside the endline before making the throw-in pass. They just can't pass it in from up there.[/B]

I think you end up with a bizarre interpretation of the rules if you allow a player to go any place where they cannot legally inbound the ball. If you agree that they cannot throw from beyond the sideline extended, why would you allow a player to go there? We are giving the team the entire baseline - why do they need this additional space?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Play #1 Technical foul on the teammate of the thrower for leaving the court. I believe that this was the proper call since he ran OOB almost the entire width of the court. When I reported the T his coach tried to say that he was forced OOB, to which I responded, "Then why did he run all the way across the gym OOB?" He put his hands on his head, said, "I don't know," rather sheepishly and sat down.
After the game I chatted with my partner about the play and told him that I probably could have gotten away with calling a violation for having more than one player OOB during a designated-spot throw-in, but I believed that that call would not have been appropriate for what this player did. I think that the violation is for cases when a teammate steps out next to the thrower and he hands him the ball or when the team runs an endline pass play not after a goal is scored. For me it is a difference between simply stepping OOB and standing there or running a fair distance OOB.

While I would agree with you in theory, I expect 95% of players and coaches are unaware of the T aspects of this play, so I would call the violation, warn the coach only (not the players) about the T for the future, and let it go. In fact, blow the whistle for the violation the minute he steps out. Then he won't have a chance to commit the more egregious act.

If you think the coach already knew the T rule, I'd call my assigner or commissioner after the game and let them decide what to do from there.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

The calls were:
Play #1 Technical foul on the teammate of the thrower for leaving the court. I believe that this was the proper call since he ran OOB almost the entire width of the court.

Nope, if I understand the original play this is wrong. As soon as A2 leaves the court you have a throw-in violation, you should have never gotten to the point where "he ran down the court" is justificaiton for a T.

[Nevadaref]

Dan,
Unfortunately, you are making the same logical argument as those who say that a defender has committed a violation as soon as he breaks the OOB plane on a throw-in and therefore cannot be penalized with a T for fouling the thrower or for slapping the ball while the thrower still has it.

The logic of this argument has not been accepted by the NFHS and they wrote a couple of casebook plays to say just that. See 10.3.12 Situations A,B,and C on page 77 of the 2002-2003 casebook. Sorry that I don't have the new one yet, so I can't cite the page in it, but we both know the play rulings won't change.

In short, you penalize what the player does in addition to crossing the OOB plane.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker


While I would agree with you in theory, I expect 95% of players and coaches are unaware of the T aspects of this play, so I would call the violation, warn the coach only (not the players) about the T for the future, and let it go. In fact, blow the whistle for the violation the minute he steps out. Then he won't have a chance to commit the more egregious act.

If you think the coach already knew the T rule, I'd call my assigner or commissioner after the game and let them decide what to do from there.

Rain,
I think it would be very dangerous territory to officiate the games based on what rules we think the players and coaches are aware of and which they are not. They are all written in the book, and they have a responsibility to know them. I believe that the only right way to call the game is to properly enforce the penalties that are given for specified actions. If I only give a warning or a violation when a T is justified, then I am being unfair to the opposing team.
Remember this was a 12th grade boys tournament game, not some 3rd grade rec league, and the game was close with only a couple of minutes remaining when I had to make the call.

Also, I noticed that you didn't mention the ignorant fans, but we can probably agree that we don't care one bit about what they know or don't know.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

I think you end up with a bizarre interpretation of the rules if you allow a player to go any place where they cannot legally inbound the ball. If you agree that they cannot throw from beyond the sideline extended, why would you allow a player to go there? We are giving the team the entire baseline - why do they need this additional space? [/B]

I think that it is bizarre, too, but I believe that we have to give them what is not specifically prohibited by the rules. And since they only have five seconds to make that throw-in, they better be sure they can get back in time, if they go somewhere wierd, and let's just say that I might be counting a little faster while they are gone.

[ChuckElias]

This thread has now spilled into another one, so to avoid having the same conversation going on in two different places, I'm going to use some of Nevada's comments from the other thread in this post. Nevada makes the same claim there that he makes to Dan in the following quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Dan,
you are making the same logical argument as those who say that a defender has committed a violation as soon as he breaks the OOB plane on a throw-in and therefore cannot be penalized with a T for fouling the thrower or for slapping the ball while the thrower still has it.

The logic of this argument has not been accepted by the NFHS and they wrote a couple of casebook plays to say just that. See 10.3.12 Situations A,B,and C on page 77 of the 2002-2003 casebook.

From the other thread:

Many have argued that when a defender steps through the OOB plane during a throw-in and fouls the thrower, it should not be a intentional foul because as soon as the defender breaks the OOB plane with any part of his body this constitutes an immediate throw-in violation and a warning for delay should be called.
This line of reasoning has been shot down by casebook play 10.3.12 Situation C. The same is true for reaching through and slapping the ball; just look at the casebook plays above this one.

I would say, Nevada, that the difference between the casebook plays you cite and the play that we're talking about is that in the casebook, breaking the plane and touching the ball are part of the same act. They happen almost simultaneously. If the defender has his hands thru the OOB plane and is waving them in the inbounder's face for 3 seconds, are you going to wait another 3 or 4 seconds to see if he also touches the ball? No.

So then in our play, if the offensive player steps OOB to receive the pass or to avoid a defender, are you going to wait 3 or 4 seconds to see if he runs the endline? No.

In your casebook citations, it would be nearly impossible to call the violation before the foul takes place. Therefore, you call the foul. It's all part of the same action. So those cases do not apply to the situation we're discussing. If you can call the violation before the foul, then do it. But if you can't, then you call the foul. In the case we're discussing, the violation clearly happened before the player had a chance to "delay" his return to the floor. So call the violation.

In short, you penalize what the player does in addition to crossing the OOB plane.

Again, I don't think that's quite the right way to think about it. You penalize the player's action. If the action included touching the ball, fine. But if the action is merely crossing the plane, then penalize only that.

Originally posted by Larks
A2 is in the paint. A2 proceeds to run OOB Behind A1 and returns in play near the sideline ready to receive a pass.

Originally posted by Nevada
Sure seems a heck of a lot like casebook play 10.3.4 Situation B to me! The call there is a T.

True, but this is different from a situation involving a throw-in. In a throw-in situation, you enforce the throw-in provision. In the above case, leaving the playing court is NOT a violation. So you can't apply it to the situation that we've been discussing, as you try to do.

The violation is there to cover situations like 9.2.9 and when a team throws an OOB pass between teammates when it doesn't have the right to run the endline.

Absolutely not, Nevada. If what you say were true, then the violation would be superfluous. It would already be covered by the other two rules you mention. But the case we've been discussing fits neither of those situations. The violation is there to keep everybody (offense and defense), except the inbounder, on the inbounds side of the court during a throw-in.

In case you haven't noticed, Nevada, nobody agrees with the T in this situation. Take the hint

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Dan,
Unfortunately, you are making the same logical argument as those who say that a defender has committed a violation as soon as he breaks the OOB plane on a throw-in and

I never said that and I am not relating my argments to any other nitpicking done here. I said as soon as he *steps* OOB he's violated. There is simply not enough time to judge "intent" becase any subsequent action happens (or should happen) during a dead ball. And you clearly said you judged intent on the part of A2 because he ran down the sidelines OOB.

[Mregor]

This may be the right thread or the wrong thread, I can't keep it straight anymore. I think you have to go to the preface of the rule book for this one. Just because it is not in the rules, doesn't necessarily make it legal. Under "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules" heading, it states "A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by rule".

Not that it would ever happen, but, someone running up the bleachers to the 10th row is an advantage. In my opinion, giving Team A a do-over because of a bad pass along the endline is also giving them and advantage. Once the ball is at their disposal I'm counting. If I get to five before it is released on a pass onto the court, I've got a violation. If they throw it along the endline and the player fumbles it and it bounces around, I'm not stopping my count. I believe that allowing a do-over gives an advantage not intended by rule. The ball is live and I see no reason to extend them a "second chance".

Really this happens so rarely anymore, I don't understand why we are talking about all these "what if's" but I guess that's what we do when we don't have games to work and worry about other things.

Mregor