Michigan State v Purdue
 

End of the game. Why did Purdue inbound the ball on the far sideline? Prior, Michigan State threw a bad inbound pass to the corner (table side) where a Michigan State player stepped on the endline before touching the ball.
Is NCAA-M rules different than NFHS? Per NFHS, wouldn't the new throw-in would be where the player that was out of bounds when he touched the ball? It was a legal touch even though he was out of bounds

Ancient Times ...
 

Not to hijack this thread, but for background information, in ancient times this was a NFHS throwin violation (thrower must release the ball on a pass directly into the court). Ancient casebook plays (written in hieroglyphs) indicated that the ball goes back to non-inbounding team at original throwin spot, no matter who touched the ball out of bounds.

We have some local grizzled high school veteran officials who will still occasionally kick this call.

Not many, most guys (and it was only guys back then) who knew the ancient rule are either retired, or dead.

I know things change. I asked a throw-in question back in November 2006 an at that time the ball was brought back to the original spot for a throw-in.
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ere-throw.html

So is the NCAA-M rule written that way? Because that was the procedure that was used in this game

Not Ancient, But Antique ...
 

Nice antique thread Zoochy. Thanks.

Changes (David Bowie, 1971) ...
 

NFHS: So when did the subsequent throwin change to the spot nearest the out of bounds violation?

Notice The Coach Has A Seatbelt Rule ...
 

From ancient NFHS High School Basketball Rules Simplified and Illustrated.

Official on the left, with the wings, is Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., reminding a coach that he has to be seated.

Players on right are Skins and Shirts.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.4...=0&w=256&h=170

If I recall correctly, the old rule was out of bounds at the spot where the ball was touched by the non-throwing player, but the NFHS messed up an unannounced editorial change about fifteen years ago that sent the ball back to the original throw-in spot. That ruling only lasted a couple of seasons and then returned to as it was before.

"A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far Away" ...
 

I'm talking about forty years ago. Fifteen years ago is an antique. Forty years ago is ancient.

OK OK OK..... enough of the history of NFHS rules
What is the NCAA-M procedure if the player is OOB when they touch the inbounds pass?
Is this a THROW-IN violation and the ball goes back to the original spot? Or is this a player violation and the Throw-in spot is where the OOB player touched the ball? Or does NCAA-M go to a preassigned location for this type of OOB violation?
After reviewing the play, the 3 college officials went back to the original location.

Enquiring Minds Want To Know ...
 

Just giving a possible reason for the confusion.

I would also like to know.

The situation described does not fall under any of the articles under Rule 9 Section 4, which is throw-in violations. Therefore, I would have had the throw-in be at the new spot.

I have not found anything directly on-point in either the rulebook or the case book.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

So the crew probably just didn’t know the correct ruling. This is an uncommon out of bounds violation, so the normal official who doesn’t put a lot of effort into the details of the rules would be apt to make a mistake here.

One way to help think about this scenario is to imagine if the touch were by either A or B.

If B3 were to touch the throw-in while being OOB, would you give the ball to A or B? Of course, it would be A's ball. Since you're giving the all to team A, that means the violation was on B1. Where did B3 violate? Where B3 touched the ball.

Now, if you were to replace B3 with A3, shouldn't the result be the same....at the spot of the violation? And that would be where A3 touches the ball (while OOB).

It's True, It's True ...
 

Back in the 1980's, in a high school game, it would be B's ball back at the original throwin spot, and, of course, Coach A always went bonkers. The "left-over stench" of this old rule is the reason why this situation seems more confusing than it should be. Observed one of our best, very experienced, grizzled officials (outstanding real game knowledge and a great rules guy), after the rule was changed, recently bring the ball back to the original throwin spot (for this very exact situation) in a state tournament quarterfinal game. Thank God he gave the ball to the "right" team, just the wrong spot. Nobody spotted it except me.

I have always stated that for experienced veterans, it's not the rules that are a problem, it's the rule changes that are a problem.

Now what's the new team control foul signal? And how do we now signal a held ball?

Rule Changes ...
 

This is my favorite, moving into the lane to rebound a free throw. Got to be a world record for basketball back-and-forth rule changes.

1970-71: Hits.
1981: Releases.
1993: Hits.
1996-97: Releases.
1997-98: Hits.
2014-15: Releases.

Can't remember what we did back in high school (late 1960's)?

Surprisingly, don't know why, it was very easy to adjust to each time it changed.

It doesn't take much effort to keep up with rule changes. Far less reading than reading the entire rule book.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Mental Block ...
 

Easy to learn, hard to remember in the heat (for me) of the game.

It's more like a "mental block" for me, and I have to concentrate real hard to successfully get through it; changes that should, as for most officials, just "slip off my tongue".

Like a jumper catching a jump ball, or a kick during an alternating possession throwin. I just can't get these changes into a permanent, easily accessible part of my brain, it's always a real struggle (what's the current rule) to concentrate and come up with the correct, current ruling. These are the two "biggies" for me, maybe the only ones. Probably because one could go several seasons in a row without seeing and calling them.

I've had other veterans tell me this, but they don't seem to have this problem to the extreme that I have this problem.

What It's Not ...
 

I actually have had some success remembering this change by trying to remember what it's not.

It's not, "Lose the ball, lose the arrow", as it was in ancient times.

The human mind, at least my human mind, works in mysterious ways.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Z...=0&w=228&h=163

Maybe if you didn't try to keep an encyclopedia on the history of every rule in your brain, you'd have room to remember to new stuff that's pertinent now.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Misty Water Color Memories (Barbra Streisand, 1973)...
 

I don't try, and make no effort to do so. As far as I know, there is no delete function in my brain. Wish that there was, for basketball reasons, and reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with basketball.

My 1975 home phone number just popped into my brain after being forgotten for years (three number prefix of a different number reminded me of it). Don't need it. Don't want it, but it's there. Also have my 1964 home phone number, had it for eleven years, in two different houses, it never left my brain. Don't need it. Don't want it, but it's there.

Yet I only know the phone numbers of one of my three adult children. Have to check the phone number list (I don't use my cell phone for calls made from home) every time I call the other two. Go figure.

Good reason to stay out rules conversations when young officials need to focus on the here and now and not get distracted by side discussions on what used to be.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Here And Now ...
 

... As I do when "live" training, observing, critiquing, and/or evaluating inexperienced (both young and old) officials.

I was thinking about this "mysterious" memory thing. In fifth grade, Mr. Macnick had us memorize the capitals of all fifty states (including the "new" states Alaska and Hawaii). Fifty-eight years later and I can remember most, but not all of them. Some capitals are easy to memorize, and I easily remember them, because they're somehow "memorable", large important cities (Atlanta), interesting sounding names (Tallahassee), or places that I've actually visited (Richmond). Other are less memorable for the "opposite" reasons. Why is it that I can remember some of these "less memorable" capitals (Pierre), but not others (Madison)?

Of course, if I were to "try" and go out of my way to study and memorize these state capitals again, I'm sure that I can remember all fifty of them, but without Mr. Macnick's state capital test hanging over my head, why bother, I have no plans to go on Jeopardy any time soon.

So, when this rule is wrongly applied, then how does it affect the 3 officials in achieving post season assignments? Or does anybody really care about the misapplication?
Maybe if it happened in the beginning of the season it would have been swept under the table. But it happened so late in the season and on national TV.

Major Disadvantage ...
 

My uneducated guess.

"End of the game" is always more important than earlier in the game. Teams can often overcome a mistake by an official early in the game, but may not have enough time to do so late in the game.

"National TV"? I'll let the college guys opine on that.

Most important may be "impact". Did the wrong throwin spot put one team at a major disadvantage that they couldn't overcome because it was very late in the game?

Above my pay grade.

I don't think this is one of those mistakes that would weigh heavily on post-season. There are bigger missed calls in every game than the wrong throw-in spot on an odd-ball play.

Easy To Adjust ...
 

Maybe because we have dozens of free throws every game?

How frequently do we have a kick during an alternating possession throwin?

I've only had one since the alternating possession arrow was "invented", also coming after the most recent rule change. I called it wrong (based on the old rule) but my rookie partner, fresh from training classes, set me straight.

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A. (6-4-5)

How frequently do we have a jumper illegally catch the jump ball?

6.4.1 SITUATION C: Following the jump between A1 and B1 to start the first quarter, the jump ball: (d) is caught by A1. RULING: In (d), Team B will have a throw-in because of the violation and the arrow for the alternating-possession will be pointed towards Team A’s basket. (4-12-1; 4-28-1)

Just posting these two changed, but rare, rules helps me to remember them. Thanks for playing along. Hope I helped some other grizzled old-timers.

I remember concepts, not each individual rule. Throw-ins do not end if a foul or defensive violation occurs during the throw-in, so arrow does not change.

Unless POI is being enforced, throw-ins after fouls and violations are not AP throw-ins.

Incorrect Interpretations ...
 

But the interpretations of said concepts weren't always what they are today.

In past times, a kick during a AP throwin led to the arrow being switched (it was a touch, an illegal touch, but nevertheless a touch that, by definition, ended the throwin), and a jumper illegally catching a jump ball led to his team losing the ball and losing the arrow (it was a possession, an illegal possession, but nevertheless a possession (holding the ball), arrow to other team; same as if nonjumper legally caught the ball, held it, and immediately traveled).

While the concepts (throwin ends, holding possession) may have stayed the same, these two interpretations (above) have changed, and are now incorrect.

"6.4.1 SITUATION C: Following the jump between A1 and B1 to start the first quarter, the jump ball: (d) is caught by A1. RULING: In (d), Team B will have a throw-in because of the violation and the arrow for the alternating-possession will be pointed towards Team A’s basket. (4-12-1; 4-28-1)"

This is not an AP throw-in, it's a throw-in for a violation. The arrow is SET to Team A in response to Team B having initial possession of the ball. So, the arrow is not SWITCHED b/c it was never set in the first place.

It's only confusing if one concentrates on what it used to be instead of memorizing what it is.

A lot of things change over the years. At some point there is no excuse for not knowing the current rules. We don't get to consult with the forum in the middle of a game.

That Works For Me ...
 

At one time it was set at the illegal catch (holding equals possession, even if illegal holding, back then).

Great explanation (above post) of the current interpretation and the general concept behind it. But it hasn't always been that way. Once upon a time it was a possession, an illegal possession, but nevertheless a possession (holding the ball), arrow to other team (same as if nonjumper legally caught the ball, held it, and immediately traveled).

Only had it a few times in real games (both before and after the change), but had it on many, many refresher exams (both before and after the change). Always got it right, but it took a extra effort and "brain power". Never said that I didn't know it, it just took extra effort because it was a change from something different, "lose the ball and lose the arrow", that had been drummed into our brains for many, many years. Always look it up on refresher exam, double check just to be sure, why get a simple question wrong?

Like I said, I've now got this down pat, but only because I remember it as it's not "lose the ball and lose the arrow" anymore (after hearing "lose the ball and lose the arrow" at many, many meeting before the change). That works for me. Different strokes.

But I do get to slow down and think for a second, or two, a kind of "self consulting". Why rush? May even have a short tête-à-tête with my partner. Why not? How can it hurt?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.X...=0&w=163&h=163

Two Heads Are Better Than One ...
 

Even in my very shortest pregame conferences, if the referee doesn't say it, I will, "If anything weird happens, let's get together and talk about it". While there certainly can be much weirder situations, a jumper illegally catching a jump ball, and/or a kicked ball on an alternating possession throwin, can certainly be considered weird, odd, or rare situations worthy of a tête-à-tête between partners. Why not? How can it hurt?

My tete-a-tete, if I blow my whistle on an unusual play, is telling my partners what I called and how we adjudicate from there.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Tête-à-Tête ...
 

... and if your partner makes a call on an unusual play and kicks it, as in the original post, is his whistle, his call, and his adjudication enough of a tête-à-tête?

If they tell me something wrong during their communication and...

a) I'm not the crew chief, I will make sure I communicate the proper adjudication/ruling. What the crew does from that point is not my call.

b) I'm the crew chief, we will adjudicate the play properly.

I have kicked a rule once in my career, that was this season in my first game back after a 23 1/2 month lay-off due to knee surgery and COVID. It involved the shot clock and one partner felt I was getting it wrong but didn't want to hold up the game. I reviewed the rule at halftime and informed both coaches and the table that I had messed up.

But my main point is that if you blow your whistle you should be laying out the succeeding steps to your partners, not asking "what do we do next". If you are getting something wrong, then someone should speak up quickly and concisely.

Team ...
 

Agree 100%. Everybody appreciates good partners.

Decades ago I spotted my first-time partner (top-notch, late-round-tournament-level official) kicking an out of bounds call on his line on a ball that came from my primary. I was 100% certain. No whistle from me, I simply put up my stop-sign hand, took several quick steps toward him for a tête-à-tête, and quietly said, "Did you get a good look at that?". He replied, "Yes", and I immediately backed off with no further comment. I have absolutely no problem with that part, maybe he did get a much better look than me. But at halftime he told me to never "question" any of "his" out of bounds calls ever again (in direct conflict to the accepted procedure (asking for help or offering help) that we're supposed use to handle such situations in our local area) in a tone that sent chills down my spine. Keep in mind that I didn't come running in with whistle blasting, pointing, and over-turning his call, like Mighty Mouse saving the day. Worked with him several times after that. Never offered him help again, even if he needed it. Forty-plus years, dozens (that's conservative) of times I offered help to partners, only partner to have ever said anything even close to that to me.

2007-08 Interpretations
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

He's just a dick. But an OOB call is still a judgment call, not a rules issue. I'm going to voice (well, not anymore, LOL) my thoughts when a rules issue comes up.

I once worked a D1 game with a veteran Final Four official who was going to administer a Technical Foul penalty incorrectly. I informed him of the proper adjudication and he told me "I don't care, I want to do it this way" (he didn't say it in a mean or demeaning way). I had done my part.

I guess b/c I didn't start officiating until I was 37 and had already been in the military 19 years, I've never felt intimidated by another official, no matter what their reputation or status.

He, Not Me ...
 

Bingo.

His comments (especially his tone) to me as a newly appointed full time varsity (previously working a "split schedule", both varsity and subvarsity) official certainly didn't give me any confidence moving forward into the second half of the game, my next game, and my games the rest of the season.

Took me a while, and asking questions from colleague friends (never mentioned his name), but I eventually figured out that it was he who did something wrong, not me.

Decades later and it made such an impression on me that I remember it like it was last week.

Now, where are my car keys?