Tip Me Over And Pour Me Out ...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I refer to this as a clarification (and much appreciated) rather than a rule change, or an interpretation change, because I believe that the older language, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space", by intent and purpose, was "enough" to call a violation.

I feel that an actual rule change was necessary rather than merely a clarification.

What constitutes leaving a marked lane-space? Is it the same as leaving a throw-in spot? How about being the same as being in the FT lane for a 3-second violation?

Is the definition of “Player location” from Rule 4 is relevant here? Not really because while we can draw a parallel with being inside/outside of the 3pt line, that part of this definition is quite clearly specific to the 3pt line, not the FT lane, so we are left arguing by analogy instead of actually citing a rule.

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)

This is bogus because merely touching a player who is either inbounds or out of bounds does not alter the court status of a player. Player location clearly states the opposite of what the author of this interpretation wrote.

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

And the 3-second violation only talks about the feet, not a player’s hands or body.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I feel that an actual rule change was necessary rather than merely a clarification.

You are where you are until you get where you're going.

Still think that it's a clarification, based on purpose and intent, I would have called the violation before the rule language changed, but I love Nevadaref's passion regarding this play.

I wish that the NFHS had the same passion, commitment, and attention to detail to rule writing as does Nevadaref. Instead the NFHS often acts like a bunch of paper pushers.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And the 3-second violation only talks about the feet, not a player’s hands or body.

Great point. I'm having a lot of fun picturing it.

Feet out? Hands in? No violation from me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I feel that an actual rule change was necessary rather than merely a clarification.

Is Nevadaref saying that before the 2009-10 rule language change, a player's feet in a marked lane space were limited on only three sides.

Front by the lane line plane. Sides by the lane mark planes.

Back by ...? Player free to roam all the way back to the sideline?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is Nevadaref saying that before the 2009-10 rule language change, a player's feet in a marked lane space were limited on only three sides.

Front by the lane line plane. Sides by the lane mark planes.

Back by ...? Player free to roam all the way back to the sideline?

The definition of a marked lane space is the same pre-2009 and post-2009.

Can you please show me where he stated that definition changed.

Aren't scientists trained to stick to the facts in front of them?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is Nevadaref saying that before the 2009-10 rule language change, a player's feet in a marked lane space were limited on only three sides.

Front by the lane line plane. Sides by the lane mark planes.

Back by ...? Player free to roam all the way back to the sideline?

No, the spaces have been three feet deep the entire time that I’ve been officiating.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The definition of a marked lane space is the same pre-2009 and post-2009.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, the spaces have been three feet deep the entire time that I’ve been officiating.

1996-97 Rulebook 1-5: The lane space marks and neutral zone marks identify areas which extend 36 inches from the outer edge of the lane lines toward the sidelines.

I was grasping at straws as to why this (addition to 2009-10 rulebook of "contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space") was a whole nine yards rule change (as opined by Nevadaref) and not just a clarification by spitballing this (lack of depth) idea in the form of a question without any due diligence on my part.

I knew the lane spaces have always been three feet deep, but just considered that this may have been yet anther example of the NFHS's lack of attention to detail.

In this case, I owe the NFHS an apology. I'm sorry NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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)

We know that a player in bounds is still inbounds if he touches a player (person) who is 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.

Now let's check out the opposite.

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?

[Nevadaref]

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?

Billy, your idea would cause the following problem: A1 is out of bounds along the sideline of the frontcourt to execute a throw-in. He passes the ball in to A2. A1 now reaches out and puts a hand on defender B1 who is standing inbounds near the sideline. A2 is trapped by defenders B2 and B3, so he quickly passes the ball back to A1. Under your concept, no violation would occur and play would continue because A1 would be considered inbounds. Unfortunately, that means players could use more space than intended by the court boundary. This could confer an unintended and unfair advantage such as detailed herein.

Sorry, but a player is located where he is touching the court, and has nothing to do with contacting another player.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A1 is out of bounds along the sideline of the frontcourt to execute a throw-in. He passes the ball in to A2. A1 now reaches out and puts a hand on defender B1 who is standing inbounds near the sideline. A2 is trapped by defenders B2 and B3, so he quickly passes the ball back to A1. Under your concept, no violation would occur and play would continue because A1 would be considered inbounds.

Nice, well thought out situation. I see the conflict.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...but a player is located where he is touching the court, and has nothing to do with contacting another player.

You are where you are until you get where you're going.

Agree, but 2009-10 NFHS Interpretation SITUATION 1 seems to say otherwise.

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?

Stupid NFHS.

[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 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)?