Tip Me Over And Pour Me Out ...
 

This came up in Greg Austin's You Tube presentation this morning.

9.1.3 SITUATION K: Before the ball is released on a free-throw attempt by A1, B1 in a marked lane space: (c) loses her balance and touches the inside of the lane with both hands; RULING: Violation in (c). Stepping on or breaking (with a foot) the plane of any boundary spaces along the lane or around the three-point line are violations until restrictions end. (9-1-3 g; 1-5)

Assume that both of B1's feet remain in the marked lane space, she just loses her balance and tips over into the lane, with only her hands touching inside the lane, like doing push-ups. The ruling says illegal, which I agree with, but not by the explanation given (stepping on or breaking with a foot the plane of any boundary spaces along the lane are violations) but rather because of the rule language (no player must enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space until the ball is released).

Was this situation (loses balance and tips over into the lane, with only hands touching inside the lane) ever clarified by the NFHS as illegal with changes in the rule language and casebook play?

I seem to remember it being clarified as illegal at a local meeting. I also seem to recall my interpreter showing us by doing push-ups on the floor.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., this is right in your wheelhouse.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but rule 9-1-3-d (edited to correct the citation) says "....contacting the court...."

I think you are mis-reading the case play. The "stepping on or breaking (with a foot)" language is correct-- it applies to those parts of the case where that action happened. Since that action didn't happen in part (c), the language doesn't apply. You shouldn't read it as being the reason part (c) is illegal.

Like Roger Maris ...
 

This caseplay (loses balance and tips over into the lane, with only hands touching inside the lane) first appeared in the casebook in 2009-10, marked with an asterisk as new.

Maybe it was then that my local interpreter decided to unilaterally (outside of the NFHS) clarify the interpretation?

Clarification ...
 

Thank you bob jenkins for replying to my odd, poorly written question.

Agree that the reason for (c) being illegal isn't listed in the language of the caseplay, but only in the language of the rulebook.

Even I'm not sure what I'm asking. How about this ...

Did the NFHS ever find it necessary to clarify this as being illegal because the feet never violate?

Or was this all a part of a bad dream?

Annual interpretations, casebook plays, and rulebooks (including actual rulebooks and casebooks made from dead trees) have all been searched with no success, so I've tried to do my due diligence.

My rulebook/casebook library only goes back to 1996-97.

Best I could do was to confirm that the play first appeared in the casebook in 2009-10.

Rules Expert ...
 

If the rules and caseplays had stayed the same over the past forty years I'd probably be considered what'cha call a rules expert.

No idea whether the NFHS felt it necessary; I don't think it is.

Case play part (a) (and maybe part (b) depending on how the rule is read), are relevant to rule 9-1-3g. This is listed in the case play.

Case play part (c) (and maybe part (b) ) are relevant to rule 9-1-3d. This could have been listed as a cite in the case play, but most of us can make the leap to find it.

Tunnel Vision ...
 

Thanks for responding bob jenkins.

I'm now leaning (no pun intended) that the NFHS did not have to clarify, but rather, it was probably only a local issue with my local interpreter responding to a question from a member with tunnel vision (like me sometimes) as to why it was a violation if the feet never broke the plane. Like it happened yesterday, I can still picture my interpreter demonstrating the play with arms twirling like a windmill followed by push-ups.

This morning, in his You Tube presentation, Greg Austin showed a very funny video of a girl in the first lane space losing her balance and twirling her arms like to windmill, for what seemed like a long time, hopelessly trying maintain her balance to stay upright and not violate by falling into the lane, which she eventually did. She gave it her best effort. The video should have been shown with the theme song from The Benny Hill Show (Yakety Sax) playing in the background.

Sorry I bothered everybody.

I don't know how to embed a video, but is this what you're talking about:
https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/25511236

Actually, it is in mine. The NFHS changed the wording of its FT lane-space violation rule in response to an inquiry from my state interpreter. The impetus was that the action you describe, a player in a marked lane-space losing his balance and placing a hand on the court inside the FT lane without moving his feet, happened to me about a dozen years ago while I was working a HS contest with our local commissioner. I did not call a violation on the play and he did. He was aware that I knew the rules quite well and asked me about the play after the game. He was shocked to hear that the rule only restricted the movement of a player’s foot and as an example I told him that a player could legally do push-ups with his hands and body extended into the lane as long as he kept his feet in the marked lane-space. He even got out the NFHS rules book and consulted the actual text.

The rule was changed to contacting the court a year or two afterward.

Billy:

My NFHS Rules Books and Casebooks prior to the 2019-20 School Year are in the attic and I do not feel like climbing into "The Attic" to look at them, LOL!

MTD, Sr.


Nevada:

I do remember you discussing your Play years ago.

MTD, Sr.


Addressing Nevada's comment:

The current CB Play 9.1.3K was added to the Casebook with the 2019-20 School Year. Without climbing into "The Attic" I do know that CB Play 9.1.3J had been CB Play 9.1.3K for a number of years and without climbing into "The Attic" I cannot tell you when or why it was changed to CB Play 9.1.3J.

The current CB Play 9.1.3K was added to the 2019-20 Casebook.

A question for Nevada: What School Year did you have your Play? And are you able to post a copy of R9-S1-A3g from that School Year so that we can compare it with the 2020-21 NFHS Baskeball Rules.

I did find a thread which you (Nevada) started on Mar. 01, 2006 (2005-06 School Year): https://forum.officiating.com/basket...violation.html I am surprised that I did not comment but I do agree with your analysis. More importantly, the 2005-06 NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules language is exactly the samee and is still the same as we speak. Which me wonder how the NFHS Rules Committee came to such a Ruling in the current CB Play 9.1.3Kc.


Time to go back to retired life and the Olympics.

Everyone: Please have a great weekend!

MTD, Sr.

Asterisk ...
 

New casebook play (different older number, same play) in 2009-10.

Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This (The Eurythmics, 1983) ...
 

Bingo. This is what I was talking about. I knew that I didn't dream it.

Cue The Benny Hill Show Theme Song (Yakety Sax) ...
 

Thanks DrPete. This is the Greg Austin You Tube presentation video that sparked my deep dive into the casebook play (though video and casebook play not exactly the same).

No Player Shall Enter Or Leave A Marked Lane Space ...
 

Language, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space" has been in the rulebook since at least 1996-97, the earliest rulebook that I have in my library.

No mention of contacting the court, that came later, maybe due to Nevadaref's request for a clarification that moved up the ladder.

Thanks Nevadaref ...
 

In the 2009-10 rulebbok, the language changed from, "No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space", to, "No player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space".

Same year casebook play 9.1.3 SITUATION K (as an older case number) showed up.

Timeline (including 2006 Forum post) sounds right for Nevadaref's request for a clarification that moved up the ladder.

We have a winner.

Last Gets Gold Medal ...
 

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

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...d6f179c190.jpg

Clarification ...
 

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.

Passion ...
 

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.

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

Feet out? Hands in? No violation from me.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.r...=0&w=199&h=166

Player Free To Roam All The Way Back To The Sideline ???
 

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?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.8...=0&w=300&h=300

Person ...
 

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?

a little off-topic
 

I am the current record holder in the Alaska International Senior Games for both the 1,500m Power Walk and the Standing Long Jump in the Men's 50-54 age category.

https://www.alaskaisg.org/records/power-walk-records/

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

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

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.

9-1-3d (for contact) and g (for breaking the plane with a foot) seem to cover it (along with e and f for players not in lane spaces)

Throw-in spot not marked lane-space.

You Are Where You Are Until You Get Where You're Going ...
 

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

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.

Can't Remember The Last Time I Used Rule One ...
 

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.

Onto The Court ...
 

The Great North ...
 

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.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.J...=0&w=284&h=165

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?

You stroll in the city and mosey in the country.

MTD, Sr.

Generic Throwins ...
 

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.

Spaghetti Test ...
 

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.

Carrying The Ball Onto The Court ..
 

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.

Intentional Foul ...
 

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)?

Must Not Carry The Ball Onto The Court ...
 

Carrying The Ball Onto The Court ...
 

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.

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


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Pinocchio Became A Real Boy ...
 

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.

For The Greater Good Of The Cause ...
 

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.

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.

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)?

... 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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.3...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

Unannounced ...
 

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.

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.

Twist And Shout (The Beatles, 1964) ...
 

And I would agree.

Good time to confirm with the young'uns that it is not a dribble when a inbounds player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

4.15 COMMENT: … It is not a dribble when a player stands still and holds the ball and touches it to the floor once or more than once.

In addition: 4-42-NOTE: The traveling and dribbling rules are not in effect for a throw-in.

I learned something from this thread. That is a good thing.
However, the NFHS needs to edit the case play below and strike the following sentences. Neither are true.


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)

Remain Out Of Bounds Until Releasing Throwin Pass ...
 

A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass?

That's true.

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

When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she has inbound status?

We can debate the explanation/rationale, but it's still a throwin violation by rule.

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

Actually, it’s not.

Let’s take the case of an end line throw-in following a goal.
A1 may secure the ball, take it out of bounds, look for an open teammate, place the ball on the floor in the out of bounds area, and step inbounds. At this point either A1 or any of his teammates can now move out of bounds, pick up the ball, and make a throw-in pass. So the above requirement is false for this situation, and since it isn’t true for all situations, it is false.

Now if you wish to limit the above statement to only designated-spot throw-ins, then it works because in order to put the ball down and then come inbounds the thrower would have to leave the designated spot.

Stress Test ...
 

Excellent post. I agree. Like me, Nevadaref likes to use extreme examples to put rule language to a test.

In this situation, 9-2-10-Note fails the "stress test".

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S...=0&w=300&h=300