thoughts on upspoken rules

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Thanks. I understand reach isn't foul, was using shorthand. The contact on rebound, that is unfortunate because most everyone associated with the game would agree that the better result is the ball be awarded to inside player rather than out on inside player .

This usually comes up in NCAA where replay is used late in the game to review OOB plays. NCAA has had the opportunity to change the rule, but hasn't. (The next rules change cycle is next year.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

Thanks. I understand reach isn't foul, was using shorthand. The contact on rebound, that is unfortunate because most everyone associated with the game would agree that the better result is the ball be awarded to inside player rather than out on inside player . I play enough and it happens enough that I wouldn't even go there. No one would believe that is a proper interpretation of the rules. It is a bad result. I don't think most associated with the game realize that is the way you all call it. If you quizzed players and coaches , the majority would say inside player awarded ball when outside player gets hand on inside players hand when inside players hand is on ball up top, and it goes out. Thanks though,

Sounds like you are using a solution to find a problem. I do not care what players and coaches think of existing rules that they do not understand because that is not the things actual officials talk about. I have never said anything about who has inside position as it relates to being in an advantageous position. The inside player often does illegal stuff and is watched accordingly and at least in the NCAA tape that is clearly stated by the NCAA supervisor. And certainly, no one cares about where you are located if you are the one that is touching the ball and that is clearly seen. Replay makes it easier to get that situation right. I seriously doubt the rule is going to change over this in any way, even with next year being a rule change year (and for the record they already changed rules this year and this "problem" was not addressed).

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

The contact on rebound ...

Now I think that I fully understand your question. You're not talking about "over the back" contact, but rather some "hand to hand" contact between and inside and outside player on a rebound that ends up going out of bounds.

Situation: Inside player gets rebound, outside player, with no body to body contact, hits the hand of the inside player. The ball, only due to the hit, goes out of bounds off the inside player's hand.

Interesting question, but one that is covered by existing NFHS rules, and I was unaware of any myths regarding this situation.

As it's been for many years, the hand to hand contact described in this situation is totally legal.

4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled
by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally
hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

10-6-2: A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless
such contact is only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is
incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

In regard to whom caused the ball to go out of bounds, that's also been a very clear ruling for many years.

7-2-1: The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds
to touch it or be touched by it, unless the ball touches a player who is out of
bounds prior to touching something out of bounds other than a player.

So in the situation described above, there was no illegal hand to hand contact initiated by the outside player (and no illegal body to body contact), and the ball was last touched the inside player before going out of bounds, so the outside player's team will get the ball for a throwin.

End of story. Sayonara baby.

Originally Posted by thedewed

... most everyone associated with the game would agree that the better result is the ball be awarded to inside player rather than out on inside player ... If you quizzed players and coaches , the majority would say inside player awarded ball when outside player gets hand on inside players hand when inside players hand is on ball up top, and it goes out.

I absolutely disagree with you on this. I've made this call hundreds of times over the past thirty-eight years and have seldoom received any complaints from coaches, or players. Occasionally I'll get a question about a possible simultaneous touch by both players, or a question along the lines of, "Are you sure", or "Please check with your partner", but no major complaints. Maybe that's the belief of the guys you play pickup ball with at the YMCA, or on a playground's asphalt courts, but few involved with the interscholastic game, officials, coaches, and most players, have that erroneous view.

Now, if you're talking about this play being associated with an "over the back" (short hand) situation, that may be different, the "unofficial interpretation" of that has evolved over the years (mainly due to the availability, and increased usage, of video), and may still vary from locality to locality, and from level to level. Please see my earlier post (below).

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1024440

[thedewed]

yes, the over the back, as you describe it, where no contact down low, outside guy gets up and hits hand on inside guy while inside guys hand is on the ball, and my understanding is now that is ball to the outside /hand hitting hand guy.

with all due respect, i think it's a matter of a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this, and they give it to the outside guy and the officials tell the coaches that if outside guy hit hand, doesn't have to hit ball, he gets the ball, this will be changed. I would be surprised if this has been spelled out to coaches by officials, because it is a ludicrous result. I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation, and the tweak in how officials call it precisely because of the risk that replay will be their undoing. But what do I know, although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

to tell the truth, I don't really understand why a replay can't result in a foul when one wasn't called on the play, rather than just out of bounds or whatever. If using replay, why not just go ahead and get it right?

thanks for all your time, you obviously know the current officiating environment.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

... a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this ... D1 coaches ...

Just to be 100% clear, my comments were strictly in regard to NFHS (high school) rules only. I'll have to let some of the Forum college guys give you the college version of the plays that I discussed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

with all due respect, i think it's a matter of a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this, and they give it to the outside guy and the officials tell the coaches that if outside guy hit hand, doesn't have to hit ball, he gets the ball, this will be changed. I would be surprised if this has been spelled out to coaches by officials, because it is a ludicrous result. I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation, and the tweak in how officials call it precisely because of the risk that replay will be their undoing. But what do I know, although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

Again this seems to bother you more than it does the participants. I have no idea why but never heard this as an issue at that level. But then again I do not work at that level but I do know several people that do.

Originally Posted by thedewed

to tell the truth, I don't really understand why a replay can't result in a foul when one wasn't called on the play, rather than just out of bounds or whatever. If using replay, why not just go ahead and get it right?

Because you would have 100 stoppages a game. There are only certain things that can be reviewed and it has to be done in that parameters.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by thedewed

yes, the over the back, as you describe it, where no contact down low, outside guy gets up and hits hand on inside guy while inside guys hand is on the ball, and my understanding is now that is ball to the outside /hand hitting hand guy.

with all due respect, i think it's a matter of a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this, and they give it to the outside guy and the officials tell the coaches that if outside guy hit hand, doesn't have to hit ball, he gets the ball, this will be changed. I would be surprised if this has been spelled out to coaches by officials, because it is a ludicrous result. I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation, and the tweak in how officials call it precisely because of the risk that replay will be their undoing. But what do I know, although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

to tell the truth, I don't really understand why a replay can't result in a foul when one wasn't called on the play, rather than just out of bounds or whatever. If using replay, why not just go ahead and get it right?

thanks for all your time, you obviously know the current officiating environment.

Replay can only result in a foul if the officials rule that the action that they reviewed constituted a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul, a contact dead ball technical foul, or a flagrant technical foul. If there was no flagrant foul, but there was a common foul, on replay, officials can enforce the common foul. Replay can also determine whether there was a fight, and penalize the players involved. However, outside of 11-2-1-d, instant replay cannot create fouls. So, replay can result in fouls, but only in flagrant and/or technical fouls when there was a call, or a review was requested by a coach, or in common fouls, if there was evidence of such fouls when the review was initiated by the officials.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation, and the tweak in how officials call it precisely because of the risk that replay will be their undoing. But what do I know, although I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

It's automatically a review in the last two minutes (?) of a game when there's any question on who might have last touched the ball

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

yes, the over the back, as you describe it, where no contact down low, outside guy gets up and hits hand on inside guy while inside guys hand is on the ball, and my understanding is now that is ball to the outside /hand hitting hand guy.

with all due respect, i think it's a matter of a high profile TV game where instant replay shows this, and they give it to the outside guy and the officials tell the coaches that if outside guy hit hand, doesn't have to hit ball, he gets the ball, this will be changed. I would be surprised if this has been spelled out to coaches by officials, because it is a ludicrous result. I would be very surprised if D1 coaches understand that interpretation...

Coaches, ADs, and college commissioners write the rules, we only enforce them. If it is a ludicrous result you need to address that with coaches, ADs, and college commissioners, not officials.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

... I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

Too bad it wasn't a Holiday Inn Express.

I got a great night's sleep last night, and when I woke up this morning (looking at the right side of the grass) this was still the NFHS rule:

7-2-1: The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds
to touch it or be touched by it, unless the ball touches a player who is out of
bounds prior to touching something out of bounds other than a player.

Officials, in the past, may have unofficially (wink, wink) interpreted this rule (the rule itself didn't change) differently given a situation involving a choice of calling a possible, close "over the back" foul, or giving the ball to the "wrong" team (everybody's happy, team doesn't get the ball it rightly deserves, but it also doesn't get a close "over the back" foul that it may, or may not deserve). Many officials no longer interpret this situation this way, living in the age of everything being recorded (my neighbor, across the street, just informed me that if I ever suspect that a package was stolen off my front stoop, that she's got a camera aimed in my house's general direction, and that she can check out the situation to help the police).

Officials have never tweaked Rule 7-2-1 in regard to legal "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact". This, and the situation above, are not comparable situations because while "over the back" contact may be illegal in some cases, "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" has never been illegal. It's like comparing apples to meatloaf © 2018 Raymond.

It's black, or it's white, there's no gray. "Hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" is legal, and Rule 7-2-1 persists in this situation. Ball goes to the team that didn't touch it last. Period. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

The "over the back everybody's happy" situation? Well, that's another story for another time. I'll bring the s'mores.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Too bad it wasn't a Holiday Inn Express.

I got a great night's sleep last night, and when I woke up this morning (looking at the right side of the grass) this was still the NFHS rule:

7-2-1: The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds
to touch it or be touched by it, unless the ball touches a player who is out of
bounds prior to touching something out of bounds other than a player.

Officials, in the past, may have unofficially (wink, wink) interpreted this rule (the rule itself didn't change) differently given a situation involving a choice of calling a possible, close "over the back" foul, or giving the ball to the "wrong" team (everybody's happy, team doesn't get the ball it rightly deserves, but it also doesn't get a close "over the back" foul that it may, or may not deserve). Many officials no longer interpret this situation this way, living in the age of everything being recorded (my neighbor, across the street, just informed me that if I ever suspect that a package was stolen off my front stoop, that she's got a camera aimed in my house's general direction, and that she can check out the situation to help the police).

Officials have never tweaked Rule 7-2-1 in regard to legal "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact". This, and the situation above, are not comparable situations because while "over the back" contact may be illegal in some cases, "hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" has never been illegal. It's like comparing apples to meatloaf © 2018 Raymond.

It's black, or it's white, there's no gray. "Hand to hand in contact with the ball contact" is legal, and Rule 7-2-1 persists in this situation. Ball goes to the team that didn't touch it last. Period. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

The "over the back everybody's happy" situation? Well, that's another story for another time. I'll bring the s'mores.

I always preferred through the back, it displacement, rather than over the back. Shouldn't penalize athletes that can go and get it unless they actually displace someone in between.

I guess I would be surprised to hear a d1 coach has actually been told, or understands, that if his inside guy goes up to gather with one hand, and someone jumps from behind him and hits his guys hand while it's on the ball, and it goes out, it's out on his guy. I'll ask someone that coaches at that level sometime.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I always preferred through the back, it displacement, rather than over the back. Shouldn't penalize athletes that can go and get it unless they actually displace someone in between.

I guess I would be surprised to hear a d1 coach has actually been told, or understands, that if his inside guy goes up to gather with one hand, and someone jumps from behind him and hits his guys hand while it's on the ball, and it goes out, it's out on his guy. I'll ask someone that coaches at that level sometime.

Coaches need to do a better job with rules study and paying attention to preseason rules videos and clinics.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I always preferred through the back, it displacement, rather than over the back.

Point taken, but please note that I always used the phrase "over the back" in quotes. As an official, I should never use the phrase "over the back", but in the case of this thread I thought that it brought clarity to the situation.

From my magazine article:

"Over the back", reported by an official to the table on a rebounding foul, is, in reality, probably a pushing foul. Over the back is not necessarily a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called, and this should be reported to the table as such.

[Pantherdreams]

I don't know about unspoken rules but I do know rules tend to be pretty straight forward.

Specifically if the ball goes out of bounds then whoever last touched the ball is responsible and the other team gets the ball.

If you feel like someone gained an advantage (getting the ball back) because of contact that can be deemed a foul. Then call the foul.

Because Billy Mac likes it so much likes it so much when I speak Canadian I believe their is a shinny expression that applies (fyi shinny is an informal pickup hockey game with limited gear and rules):

Toques don't fall of on their own.

If something happens that shouldn't because of illegal contact then that contact is not ok.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

... if the ball goes out of bounds then whoever last touched the ball is responsible and the other team gets the ball.

If you feel like someone gained an advantage because of contact that can be deemed a foul. Then call the foul.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Simple. To the point. It's the Canadian way.

Toques? Let me whip out my Canadian-American dictionary.