Violation???

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

We'll be waiting on your rules citation.

I can't think of any real scenario, but I can think of about 8-9 teammates that can be OOB during a designated spot throwin...the ones on the bench.

I had initially thought that the restriction only applied to the boundary on which the throwin occurred but it seems the rule only references being OOB, not just on the throwin boundary line.

[bucky]

No waiting necessary, read your NFHS case book.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

No waiting necessary, read your NFHS case book.

Either you have a citation or you don't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I had initially thought that the restriction only applied to the boundary on which the throwin occurred but it seems the rule only references being OOB, not just on the throwin boundary line.

Correct, but I think that's the (obvious?) intent.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I had initially thought that the restriction only applied to the boundary on which the throwin occurred but it seems the rule only references being OOB, not just on the throwin boundary line.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Correct, but I think that's the (obvious?) intent.

I apologize in advance, I thought that I really had a handle on these situations, but somewhere along the way I became confused. I keep reading earlier posts to see if I missed something, but I'm still lost, so please bear with me.

What restriction (on any boundary) is Camron Rust and bob Jenkins referring to (citation please)?

Originally Posted by Raymond

On a designated spot throw-in no teammates of the thrower-in may go OOB.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This would be a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, it's not a throwin violation. Correct?

And could someone please answer my question (above), is my statement correct?

And if it isn't, why am I incorrect?

Also, bucky, I'm waiting with bated breath.

Originally Posted by bucky

No waiting necessary, read your NFHS case book.

Please stop being a tease, I knew a lot of girls in high school like that (I watched Breakfast Club on television last night).

Thank you.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I apologize in advance, I thought that I really had a handle on these situations, but somewhere along the way I became confused. I keep reading earlier posts to see if I missed something, but I'm still lost, so please bear with me.

What restriction (on any boundary) is Camron Rust and bob Jenkins referring to (citation please)?





And could someone please answer my question (above), is my statement correct?

And if it isn't, why am I incorrect?

Also, bucky, I'm waiting with bated breath.



Please stop being a tease, I knew a lot of girls in high school like that (I watched Breakfast Club on television last night).

Thank you.

Rule 9-2-ART. 11

No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins

Rule 9-2 is "Throw-in Provisions".

What rulebook do you IAABO folks in Connecticut operate under? Does it not have this rule citation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Rule 9-2-ART. 11 No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins

Thank you very much. I knew it, but couldn't cite it (see below).

Originally Posted by Raymond

What rulebook do you IAABO folks in Connecticut operate under?

The Stupid BillyMac Rulebook where I stop at Article 10 before the long list of PENALTIES and not realize that there is an Article 11 hiding, all by its lonesome self, below the PENALTIES.

I hate it when some additional articles hide in plain sight. Damn cataracts.

[BayStateRef]

As noted, 9-2-11 says no teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins. Penalty is ball awarded OOB at the original throw-in spot.

BUT....
it is a legal throw-in when a pass is caught by a teammate OOB. It is an OOB violation (and not a throw-in violation) and the new throw-in will be at the OOB spot where the pass was caught, not the original throw-in spot.

So...
If a teammate catches the ball while OOB, it seems he has violated the provision that says no teammate shall be OOB after a spot throw-in starts.

How do we reconcile these seemingly conflicting rules?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

As noted, 9-2-11 says no teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins. Penalty is ball awarded OOB at the original throw-in spot.

BUT....
it is a legal throw-in when a pass is caught by a teammate OOB. It is an OOB violation (and not a throw-in violation) and the new throw-in will be at the OOB spot where the pass was caught, not the original throw-in spot.

So...
If a teammate catches the ball while OOB, it seems he has violated the provision that says no teammate shall be OOB after a spot throw-in starts.

How do we reconcile these seemingly conflicting rules?

By recognizing that the former is meant to address the situation where the inbounding team tries to switch inbounders, or act as if it's a "run the endline" type of play and fake (or make) a throw to someone else on the endline.

The latter is for the "normal" type of OOB violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

9-2-11 says no teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins.

When does this restriction (above) end?

Probably when the throwin ends, but there are other ending times for restrictions within the throwin rules:

The throw-in ends when:
a. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds.
b. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player out-of-bounds.

The thrower shall not leave the designated throw-in spot until
the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

The thrown ball shall not be touched by a teammate of the
thrower while the ball is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in
boundary-line plane.

Nit picking? Guilty as charged. Consider it a written test situation.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Either you have a citation or you don't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Either you can read or you can't.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Please stop being a tease, I knew a lot of girls in high school like that (I watched Breakfast Club on television last night).

Thank you.

I saw that and nearly stayed up to watch Pretty in Pink which followed.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

So...
If a teammate catches the ball while OOB, it seems he has violated the provision that says no teammate shall be OOB after a spot throw-in starts.

How do we reconcile these seemingly conflicting rules?

I do not feel that the provision was violated. When the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, a teammate could not be OOB (with one case play exception) as that would constitute leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. Now, during the throw-in, the teammate could end up (via say push or momentum) OOB. I do not see what there is to reconcile.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

Either you can read or you can't.



I saw that and nearly stayed up to watch Pretty in Pink which ....

As usual you have nothing concrete, just a bunch word games. Great contribution to the conversation, you really cleared up that rule for the OP.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

bucky, I'm waiting with bated breath. Please stop being a tease, I knew a lot of girls in high school like that (I watched Breakfast Club on television last night).

Originally Posted by bucky

I saw that and nearly stayed up to watch Pretty in Pink which followed.

Molly Ringwald or Ally Sheedy?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by bucky

I do not feel that the provision was violated.

The facts don’t care about your feelings. — Ben Shapiro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Raymond

As usual you have nothing concrete, just a bunch word games. Great contribution to the conversation, you really cleared up that rule for the OP.

The OP was cleared up with the first response..although maybe you did not read that part.