2019-20 NFHS Rules Changes

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

2007,08 Interpretation 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)

Nice citation Freddy. Much thanks.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The "OOB violation" was the rule / interp for a number of years. Then, unexplainedly, NFHS changed it to "TI violation" ...

Correct.

For a while, in ancient times, the NFHS interpretation for the situation above, if player B2 caught the ball while standing on a boundary line, was that it was ruled a throwin violation of thrower A1 and then Team B received the ball for a designated spot throwin at the spot of the original throwin by A1.

Not any more.

My mantra has always been that it's not the rules that are difficult, it's the rule changes that are difficult, which is why I brought up this situation for confirmation earlier in the thread, back in post #71, after reading the 2019-20 Point of Emphasis on throwin violations.

Also, I'm not sure that "unexplainedly" is a real word, if it isn't, it should be, especially in regard to NFHS interpretations.