The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 17, 2019, 02:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 478
Additionals...

OK, all or most of these "changes" are really quite perfunctory in nature; what I want to know is: 1) was there any critical discussion for modifications that involved:

1) Goal-tending [GT]---change to just make it a goaltend violation if ball hits the backboard on a try prior to being blocked regardless if the ball is still on the way upwards after said block contact? To my knowledge this is not a GT if B1 hits ball even after ball has made contact with backboard, provided said try for goal is still on the way up.

2) Ball gets lodged betw. ring and backboard on a try for goal---change to essentially consider this occurrence as the ball being inadvertently "put out-of-play" by the offensive team and then to allow the defensive team to get possession of the ball? To accomplish this without disturbing the AP arrow.

3) Foul Reporting mechanic ? To enable the Trail to be positioned opposite table during FT attempts so the Trail can better see who is subbing in and to better observe the score table for management purposes. Currently the mechanic has the Trail with his/her back to the score table, which is both inefficient and bad optics.
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 17, 2019, 02:46pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
...

3) Foul Reporting mechanic ? To enable the Trail to be positioned opposite table during FT attempts so the Trail can better see who is subbing in and to better observe the score table for management purposes. Currently the mechanic has the Trail with his/her back to the score table, which is both inefficient and bad optics.
Or just use the NBA mechanic of having the Lead monitor for subs on free throws (this could apply to 2-man as well as 3-man).
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 17, 2019, 02:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Kansas
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
Or just use the NBA mechanic of having the Lead monitor for subs on free throws (this could apply to 2-man as well as 3-man).
*Good idea there!

**Also, to promote even more efficiency, have the Center ref hand the ball to the FT shooter as is done in the NBA. I would like to see this done by us; good optics there.
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 17, 2019, 03:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
*Good idea there!

**Also, to promote even more efficiency, have the Center ref hand the ball to the FT shooter as is done in the NBA. I would like to see this done by us; good optics there.
1) Lead should do this anyway (as should C).

2) Didn't we used to do this? or, maybe it was only two person.

Frankly, I don't see that either of these adds anything (nor are they particularly negative)
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 17, 2019, 04:13pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,674
Anybody Remember The Twentieth Century ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
... have the Center ref hand the ball to the FT shooter as is done in the NBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
Didn't we used to do this? or, maybe it was only two person.
Two person NFHS trail, back in the mid to late twentieth century.

Possibly only first try (Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will remember).

Always handed from the left side of the shooter.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Jun 18, 2019 at 08:13am.
Reply With Quote
  #81 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 17, 2019, 04:19pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,674
For The Good Of The Cause ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
A1 inbounds the ball from the endline on a designated spot throwin. The ball passed by thrower A1 first touches player A2 who catches the throwin pass while standing on the out of bounds side of the sideline boundary near the division line. After the violation, where is the subsequent designated spot throwin for Team B?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
At the original spot of the throw-in; in this case, on the endline.
A throwin violation, or an out of bounds violation?

9-2-2: The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court
from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds
or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.
[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I disagree (with ilyazhito). Unless there is a case play or interpretation that says otherwise, then I think this is still an out of bounds violation. The only person that caused the ball to be out of bounds was the person receiving the pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
He's (ilyazhito) wrong. At least in FED ...
Any other comments for the good of the cause?
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Mon Jun 17, 2019 at 04:24pm.
Reply With Quote
  #82 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 17, 2019, 04:23pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,674
NFHS Goaltending ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kansas Ref View Post
To my knowledge this is not a GT if B1 hits ball even after ball has made contact with backboard, provided said try for goal is still on the way up.
Correct, the NFHS rule and interpretation hasn't changed.

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket. On most layups, the ball is going up immediately after it contacts the backboard, and in this situaion it is legal for a defender to touch the ball if it is not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference, nor is it goaltending, and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard, during a tap, or a try, so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot, and accidentally slaps the backboard, it is neither a violation, nor is it a technical foul.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Tue Jun 18, 2019 at 12:03pm.
Reply With Quote
  #83 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:19am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,674
Closure ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
A1 inbounds the ball from the endline on a designated spot throwin. The ball passed by thrower A1 first touches player A2 who catches the throwin pass while standing on the out of bounds side of the sideline boundary near the division line. After the violation, where is the subsequent designated spot throwin for Team B?
Have esteemed Forum members come to a consensus that this is an out of bounds violation rather than a throwin violation?

Has this topic not generated a lot of debate because the answer is so clear and simple?

Two members say it's an out of bounds violation (bob jenkins, JRutledge, also add third member, BillyMac).

One member says it's a throwin violation (ilyazhito).
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Thu Jun 20, 2019 at 11:30am.
Reply With Quote
  #84 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:40am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,773
It seems simple to me, if the player never touches the ball after the ball has been throw-in, then what causes the ball to be out of bounds? That is your answer. We do not need consensus IMO.

I also do not know when the last time I have seen such a play BTW (if ever).

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #85 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 622
I have had that play a few times, where a throw-in goes out of bounds untouched. It is a throw-in violation, because the throw-in is not legally executed (the ball fails to touch a player inbounds other than the thrower-in). The same thing would apply if the thrower-in threw the ball inbounds and touched it himself before it touched or was touched by a teammate or opponent.
Reply With Quote
  #86 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 12:04pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 17,674
Out Of Bounds Violation ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
I have had that play a few times, where a throw-in goes out of bounds untouched. It is a throw-in violation, because the throw-in is not legally executed
Agree 100%.

A1 inbounds the ball from the endline on a designated spot throwin. The ball passed by thrower A1 first touches player A2 who catches the throwin pass while standing on the out of bounds side of the sideline boundary near the division line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
It is a throw-in violation (the ball fails to touch a player inbounds other than the thrower-in).
But the rule states "inbounds or out of bounds".

9-2-2: The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court
from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds
or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.


For this reason, I believe it's an out of bounds violation, not a throwin violation. Team B's ball for a designated spot throwin at the sideline boundary near the division line.
__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Last edited by BillyMac; Thu Jun 20, 2019 at 12:26pm.
Reply With Quote
  #87 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 01:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
I have had that play a few times, where a throw-in goes out of bounds untouched. It is a throw-in violation, because the throw-in is not legally executed (the ball fails to touch a player inbounds other than the thrower-in). The same thing would apply if the thrower-in threw the ball inbounds and touched it himself before it touched or was touched by a teammate or opponent.
Of course.

But it's not the question that was asked.
Reply With Quote
  #88 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 01:30pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
Have esteemed Forum members come to a consensus that this is an out of bounds violation rather than a throwin violation?
Has this topic not generated a lot of debate because the answer is so clear and simple?
Two members say it's an out of bounds violation (bob jenkins, JRutledge, also add third member, BillyMac).
One member says it's a throwin violation (ilyazhito).
Not sure if I'm late for the party on this one, but has this 2007,08 Interpretation been cited?

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)
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
www.myvirtualofficialsassociation.com
Reply With Quote
  #89 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 02:33pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
Not sure if I'm late for the party on this one, but has this 2007,08 Interpretation been cited?

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)
That is why I said if there was an interpretation I would be willing to change my mind. But obviously, if you think about it what else would it be if you really think of why we are calling the violation?

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #90 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 20, 2019, 02:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
That is why I said if there was an interpretation I would be willing to change my mind. But obviously, if you think about it what else would it be if you really think of why we are calling the violation?

Peace
The "OOB violation" was the rule / interp for a number of years. Then, unexplainedly, NFHS changed it to "TI violation" -- probably just a year or so before Freddy's interp above. They quickly changed it back -- it's too bad they didn't follow this precedent on the "catching a ball in the BC" situation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2019 Rules Changes kenref1 Football 69 Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:20pm
2019 NIT experimental rules Nevadaref Basketball 6 Fri Mar 22, 2019 02:30pm
2019 nfhs agr8zebra Softball 3 Sun Feb 03, 2019 01:22pm
2019 NFHS Rule Changes Stat-Man Softball 16 Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:54pm
FED Rules Changes for 2019 CT1 Baseball 3 Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:26am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1