Tip Me Over And Pour Me Out ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

I am the current record holder in the Alaska International Senior Games for the 1,500m Power Walk

That power walk record isn't going to be of much help to you while being chased by one of those Alaskan grizzly bears that roam the streets of Fairbanks looking for pic-a-nic baskets.

I don't believe that the medal will impress the bear.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9-2-5: The thrower must not carry the ball onto the court.

4-35-1-a: The location of a player or non-player is determined by where the person is touching the floor as far as being: Inbounds or out-of-bounds.

7-1-1: A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player/person, on or outside a boundary

The problem here is that “carry the ball onto the court” is not defined by the NFHS.

According to the note following 4-42-6, the thrower must only keep one foot on or over the designated throw-in spot until the ball is released.

Your two citations shed no light on exactly what constitutes this violation. A player who has one foot inbounds and one foot out of bounds is located out of bounds per 4-35, so that isn’t helpful. Similarly, 7-1-1 is of no use if the thrower is in contact with the out of bounds area of the court.

I believe that the NFHS rules pertaining to leaving a designated spot and carrying the ball onto the court should be defined clearly in the rules book, not just interpreted in the case book.

A play for you: Thrower A1 has the ball in his hands. He loses his balance and falls forward, but is able to keep both of his feet out of bounds and within the designated throw-in spot. As he bends forward he touches the ball to the inbounds area of the court while still holding it and pushes himself back upright. He never releases the ball. Is this a throw-in violation for carrying the ball onto the court?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be competing in the 100-meter mosey.

You stroll in the city and mosey in the country.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The problem here is that “carry the ball onto the court” is not defined by the NFHS.

Common sense? Purpose and intent?

Also, keep in mind that not all throwins are designated spot throwins, so try to stay away from the phrase "designated spot" and be more generic in one's thoughts.

To me designated spot refers more to side to side movement rather than forward movement.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your two citations shed no light on exactly what constitutes this violation.

Just throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks.

This is the key citation:

9-2-5: The thrower must not carry the ball onto the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wouldn't it make sense when a player out of bounds touches a player inbounds that the out of bounds player is now in bounds?

If an inbounder, while holding the ball, has one foot out of bounds and lifts the other foot and steps inbounds with it, are we not calling a throwin violation on the inbounder (while still having of bounds status) for carrying the ball onto the court?

The NFHS wants us to call the same throwin violation on the inbounder for carrying the ball onto the court when the inbounder, with both feet out of bounds (while still having of bounds status), touches a player inbounds with a hand.

Just treating the hand the same as a foot.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If an inbounder, while holding the ball, has one foot out of bounds and lifts the other foot and steps inbounds with it, are we not calling a throwin violation on the inbounder (while still having of bounds status) for carrying the ball onto the court?

The NFHS wants us to call the same throwin violation on the inbounder for carrying the ball onto the court when the inbounder, with both feet out of bounds (while still having of bounds status), touches a player inbounds with a hand.

Just treating the hand the same as a foot.

Three comments in response.
1. No rule clearly tells us that a thrower placing one foot inbounds is a throw-in violation. We can only get that info from the case book.
2. Is this carrying the ball onto the court or leaving the designated throw-in spot?
3. Absolutely no rule prohibits incidental contact between a thrower and an opponent on the inbounds side of the boundary plane. Would you call a violation on a thrower who extends his arms through the boundary plane while holding the ball and arm-to-arm (or arm-to-body) contact occurs with an opponent? I believe that 99% of officials would consider a foul or nothing at all to be correct.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Absolutely no rule prohibits .... contact between a thrower and an opponent on the inbounds side of the boundary plane. Would you call a violation on a thrower who extends his arms through the boundary plane while holding the ball and arm-to-arm contact occurs with an opponent?

For simplicity, I got rid of the word incidental for now.

Wouldn't this be an intentional foul (by rule no allowance for the possibility of incidental) if the contact was initiated by the defender (with no plane delay warning); or a player control foul if the contact was initiated by the inbounder (though this could be ruled incidental and we would have a 2009-10 NFHS Interpretation SITUATION 1 violation)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No rule clearly tells us that a thrower placing one foot inbounds is a throw-in violation.

9-2-5: The thrower must not carry the ball onto the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Is this carrying the ball onto the court or leaving the designated throw-in spot?

Carrying the ball onto the court.

Carrying the ball onto the court is a forward action.

Leaving the designated throw-in spot is a side to side action.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Three comments in response.
...
2. Is this carrying the ball onto the court or leaving the designated throw-in spot?
...

No, because 1 foot would still be in the designated spot area.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Additionally, we have this bogus NFHS interpretation for throw-ins from about the same time as the use change being discussed. From the 2009-10 NFHS Interps: SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course we still have the age old question: Is a nine year old annual interpretation, that never made it's way in to the casebook, with no relevant rule changes, still valid? How is a young'un with only eight years of basketball officiating experience supposed to know this?

I was incorrect.

Pinocchio became a real boy and 2009-10 NFHS Interpretation SITUATION 1 became a real casebook play.

9.2.5 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul shall be called. (9-2-10 Note)

9-2-10 Note: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass.

[BillyMac]

9.2.5 SITUATION A: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps onto the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team. RULING: A violation in both (a) and (b). COMMENT: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

9-2-10 Note: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass.

9-2-5: The thrower must not carry the ball onto the court.

9-2-10 Note and 9-2-5 are rules in the rulebook, not casebook plays or interpretations.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In fact, I’m having difficulty finding a clear rule, not a case play or interpretation, stating that contacting the court inbounds would constitute leaving a designated throw-in spot.

It's not a throwin violation for leaving a designated spot, but it's still a throwin violation for 9-2-5 and 9-2-10 Note.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The problem here is that “carry the ball onto the court” is not defined by the NFHS. I believe that the NFHS rules pertaining to ... carrying the ball onto the court should be defined clearly in the rules book, not just interpreted in the case book.

Is “carry the ball onto the court” (9-2-5: The thrower must not carry the ball onto the court) clarified by a combination of 9-2-10 Note (a rule) and 9.2.5 SITUATION A (a casebook play)?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No rule clearly tells us that a thrower placing one foot inbounds is a throw-in violation. We can only get that info from the casebook.

... and 9-2-10 Note and 9-2-5 (both rules, not casebook plays).

Two rules (9-2-5 and 9-2-10 Note), and a casebook play (9.2.5 SITUATION A), with a dash of purpose and intent, should put this issue to bed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9-2-10 Note: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass.

Did the NFHS slip one past me? Did it alter 9-2-10 Note and not announce it? I’ll have to consult some older versions of the rules book, but there is no way that “or a player inbounds” was in there when I was instructing.

Excellent citation for the “not touch the inbounds area” part. Perhaps still unclear for my scenario in which the thrower pushes the ball to the floor (inbounds) without releasing it. Although I would contend that is carrying the ball onto the court.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did the NFHS slip one past me? Did it alter 9-2-10 Note and not announce it?

The NFHS has to get up pretty early in the morning to slip one past Nevadaref.

"9-2-10 Note: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass" first appeared in this form in 2010-11.

Previous to 2010-11 (at least back to 1996-97, the oldest rulebook in my library) it simply stated: "The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass".

I believe that additional rule language was unannounced in 2010-11. Typical for the NFHS. Stupid NFHS.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Additionally, we have this bogus NFHS interpretation for throw-ins from about the same time as the use change being discussed. From the 2009-10 NFHS Interpretation: SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)

Nevadaref probably had a valid gripe (still, doesn't one think that "bogus" is a little over the top) before the additional wording was added (unannounced) in 2010-11.

Odd that the annual (2009-10) interpretation (later a caseplay) came before the rule language addition (2010-11)?

Maybe it was a subsequent response by the NFHS to complaints by officials (like Nevadaref) about the annual interpretation?

If it was a subsequent response to complaints, shouldn't the year-later rule language addition been announced?

Stupid NFHS.