Jump Ball - Start the game (Video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Remind me again about the time YOU called a violation for a jumper landing on the wrong side of the division line.

Better question, how many officials have observed this and ignored it because they didn't know it was a violation?

Or, how about, how many officials have observed this, knew it was a violation, and ignored it?

Or the more general question, how many officials know this is a violation, including knowing when this specific restriction ended?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Better question, how many officials have observed this and ignored it because they didn't know it was a violation?



Or, how about, how many officials have observed this, knew it was a violation, and ignored it?



Or the more general question, how many officials know this is a violation, including knowing when this specific restriction ended?

It's a violation. How come there has not been a point of emphasis yet to get us to call it correctly?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's a violation. How come there has not been a point of emphasis yet to get us to call it correctly?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Ooh, ooh, I know! Because it is monumentally inconsequential.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Ooh, ooh, I know! Because it is monumentally inconsequential.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or because that's not the INTENT of the rule and it's just never been addressed because no one has ever called it. My point from the beginning.

I guarantee you if we all spent the rest of the season calling the violation as written, the next year the rule would be changed so that restriction would end when the tossed ball is touched.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... rule would be changed so that restriction would end when the tossed ball is touched.

Good, so at least you agree that there should be a point in time when this restriction ends and that this violation should be enforced as a newly written rule?

So under this new wording, it would be a violation for one jumper to cross the division line after the toss but before tap (which can only legally be tapped after it has reached its highest point)?

So the NFHS intended this restriction to end a few seconds before the present wording?

That's what we've been quibbling about in this thread, a few seconds?

Well, at least BigCat came up with the correct interpretation of the rule as it exists right now, before any NFHS changes due to a new intent interpretation.

During a jump ball a jumper ... is in the proper half of the center restraining circle ... which is farther from his/her basket. The jump ball end(s) when the touched ball contacts one of the eight nonjumpers, an official, the floor, a basket or backboard.

We can all agree that this is the present wording, right?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good, so at least you agree that there should be a point in time when this restriction ends and that this violation should be enforced as a newly written rule?



So under this new wording, it would be a violation for one jumper to cross the division line after the toss but before tap (which can only legally be tapped after it has reached its highest point)?



...

I never said the restriction should not end at some point. Common sense tells us the restriction should end when the tossed ball is touched, because many times a jumper lands on the other side of division line. Common sense tells us that's how we are already adjudicating this play, as nobody in this forum has ever called that a violation.

One paragraph. Anything past that is you having a conversation with yourself.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's a violation. How come there has not been a point of emphasis yet to get us to call it correctly?

Maybe the NFHS isn't aware that you have been calling it incorrectly?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe the NFHS isn't aware that you have been calling it incorrectly?

Every single referee is calling it incorrectly. Because nobody has called a jumper for landing on the other side of the division line.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Every single referee is calling it incorrectly. Because nobody is called a jumper for landing on the other side of the division line.

Because if it's happened, and I'm sure that it has, as the nontossing official in a two person game I've got other things to keep my eye on.

I'm initially looking up to watch the tap at the highest point, to chop it in, I'm not watching the division line. Changing this restriction to end a few seconds before the present wording really isn't going to help me here, and may make it harder to enforce.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Start games by giving the ball to the visitors at the division line opposite the table and avoid all this nineteenth century nonsense.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because if it's happened, and I'm sure that it has, as the nontossing official in a two person game I've got other things to keep my eye on.

I'm initially looking up to watch the tap at the highest point, to chop it in, I'm not watching the division line. Changing this restriction to end a few seconds before the present wording really isn't going to help me here, and may make it harder to enforce.

You might not be "watching" it, but if a jumper, when the ball was tossed, sprinted across the division line, you would "see" it. All 3 officials would.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

All 3 officials would.

I'm in Connecticut. Who is this "third" official you talk about?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Every single referee is calling it incorrectly. Because nobody is called a jumper for landing on the other side of the division line.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Just as nobody is calling multiple fouls...and there is even a very specific case play for that. Hey look, right back to my tag line. Add this play to the list.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

Just as nobody is calling multiple fouls ...

Not sure why, but I would rather be the first official in the universe to call a division line jump ball violation than be the first official in the universe to call a multiple foul.

Nobody would be buying me an adult beverage at the local gin joint after the game if I called either, but if I called the jump ball violation my buddies may still allow me to sit at the bar with them.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm in Connecticut. Who is this "third" official you talk about?

The OP had 3. In your case, the scorer at the table.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not sure why, but I would rather be the first official in the universe to call a division line jump ball violation than be the first official in the universe to call a multiple foul.

Nobody would be buying me an adult beverage at the local gin joint after the game if I called either, but if I called the jump ball violation my buddies may still allow me to sit at the bar with them.

So true.

Classic movie. Just watched Maltese Falcon the other day and caught end of The Caine Mutiny yesterday. Bogart no good in CM.