sideline play

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

To deal with non-throw-in situations, or intentionally deceitful situations (running out of the gym, through the hall and back in the other door).

And where may I find the language that will back up this assertation, Sir?

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
assertation

Big word.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
And where may I find the language that will back up this assertation, Sir?

Right above 9-2-12, where it says "Violations".

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Sigh. Stir that pot. . .

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.

Well, Pope Gregory III and Emperor Leo III of the Byzantine Empire were having this little spat over the use of icons in the church, and Gregory was afraid that Leo was gonna come over with his army - since Emperors have armies and Popes don't - and kick Gregory's Papal A$$...so Gregory found these Frankish dudes and crowned their King - Charlemagne - as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire...which of course made Leo mad since the Byzantine Empire was really the old Eastern Roman Empire that was set-up by Diocletian and then had Constantinople made Roman capital by Constantine, so Leo felt they were the ony true Roman Empire left, and so Leo excommunicated Gregory from his church and Gregory excommunicated Leo from his church, and there you have it...and I would call the violation because that's the rule for dealing with throw-ins...the part in rule 10 (in my humble opinion) deals with situations where the ball is in play...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Right above 9-2-12, where it says "Violations".

Chuck:

I feel your pain and agree with you 100%, but let it go, just let it go.

Hartford was nice this past weekend. Did ten games in the Starters Girls' Spring Classic. Only had one problem coach, and three problem parents and suprisingly they were from teams from Connecticut and not New Jersey.

When I have a chance I will post about the problem coach and one of the problem parents because they were from the same team.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

When I have a chance I will post about the problem coach and one of the problem parents because they were from the same team.

[/B][/QUOTE]I feel your pain and agree with you 100%, but let it go, just let it go.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Right above 9-2-12, where it says "Violations".

Right above 10-3-3, it says "Player Technical". What's your point?

[ChuckElias]

My point is that it seems to me that the original situation is as clear a case of this violation as you could have. The throw-in has started and a teammate of the inbounder steps OOB. That obviously fits 9-2-12. No judgment whatsoever is required to see that the rule has been broken.

However, it's not nearly as clear a case if you want to apply the technical foul rule. The player has to step OOB for an unauthorized reason. "Unauthorized" is usually interpreted to mean deceipt or to mean leaving the court while the ball is in play. Falling into the stands after saving an errant pass is not unauthorized. You can be OOB during play without getting a T.

But (other than the inbounder) you can't be OOB during a throw-in without having a violation.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Well, Pope Gregory III and Emperor Leo III of the Byzantine Empire were having this little spat over the use of icons in the church, and Gregory was afraid that Leo was gonna come over with his army - since Emperors have armies and Popes don't - and kick Gregory's Papal A$$...so Gregory found these Frankish dudes and crowned their King - Charlemagne - as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire...which of course made Leo mad since the Byzantine Empire was really the old Eastern Roman Empire that was set-up by Diocletian and then had Constantinople made Roman capital by Constantine, so Leo felt they were the ony true Roman Empire left, and so Leo excommunicated Gregory from his church and Gregory excommunicated Leo from his church, and there you have it...and I would call the violation because that's the rule for dealing with throw-ins...the part in rule 10 (in my humble opinion) deals with situations where the ball is in play...

Well...you read a lot of stupid dexter on the internet, and you occasionally read something worthwhile...this might be the best single post I've ever seen here, at least in the top 10. Well done.

BTW, did they shoot free throws on the double excommunications? Did they continue with the arrow or POI?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My point is that it seems to me that the original situation is as clear a case of this violation as you could have. The throw-in has started and a teammate of the inbounder steps OOB. That obviously fits 9-2-12. No judgment whatsoever is required to see that the rule has been broken.

However, it's not nearly as clear a case if you want to apply the technical foul rule. The player has to step OOB for an unauthorized reason. "Unauthorized" is usually interpreted to mean deceipt or to mean leaving the court while the ball is in play.

So you think that deliberately going OOB to avoid a defensive player, as it said in the original post, is not going OOB for an unauthorized reason that also gained the offensive team an advantage? Seems pretty clear cut to me. The judgement was already made that A4 went OOB to avoid a defender, so there's no real additional judgement involved in calling a T under 10-3-3 at this point either, is there?

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


Well...you read a lot of stupid dexter on the internet, and you occasionally read something worthwhile...this might be the best single post I've ever seen here, at least in the top 10. Well done.

BTW, did they shoot free throws on the double excommunications? Did they continue with the arrow or POI?

Why thank you kindly, sir...knew that history major and all these years as a history teacher would come in handy sometime...and the officials correctly assessed both Gregory and Leo with flagrant T's (non-contact fouls remember) and sent them both to the bath-houses... unfortunately, the simultaneous T rules were not in place then and free-throws had to be shot and they messed all that up and ended up tossing pretty much the entire Byzantine coaching staff...which led to some interesting events in the Byzantine's next match-up with the Seljuk Turks, but that's another post...maybe when MTD posts his stuff from last weekend!!

[Camron Rust]

I think both of them are valid: violation or T.

It up to the official to choose which one is the best for that game.

The option for the T is the same as when the ball is inbounds and the offense goes OOB around a screen. This only hinges on the ball being live...which it is once the ball is in the throwers hands.


All that said...I'd call the violation. It would be sufficient in most games. If it persisted, I might escalate to the T.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
So you think that deliberately going OOB to avoid a defensive player, as it said in the original post, is not going OOB for an unauthorized reason that also gained the offensive team an advantage?

It's pretty obvious that it did not gain the offensive team an advantage, b/c I just blew the whistle and gave the ball to Team B. As soon as he step on the OOB line, he committed the violation. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not; it doesn't matter if it (would have) gained an advantage or not.

If the inbounder stepped onto the bleachers and threw the ball in, would you T him up for gaining an unfair height advantage? Or would you call the violation for leaving the designated spot? It doesn't matter if the extra height is unsportsmanlike b/c as soon as he left the spot, he had already violated.

This is the same to me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

It's pretty obvious that it did not gain the offensive team an advantage, b/c I just blew the whistle and gave the ball to Team B. As soon as he step on the OOB line, he committed the violation. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not; it doesn't matter if it (would have) gained an advantage or not.

If the inbounder stepped onto the bleachers and threw the ball in, would you T him up for gaining an unfair height advantage? Or would you call the violation for leaving the designated spot? It doesn't matter if the extra height is unsportsmanlike b/c as soon as he left the spot, he had already violated.

This is the same to me.

Playing devil's advocate since I've already stated that I prefer the violation....

The moment he steps on the line is the moment that leaving the court for an unauthorized reason occurs. We can see at that moment, and possibly before, that the player is heading that way for a purpose. Screen at the line, player goes around, stepping OOB, that could be a T right then and there....the same instant that the violation also occurs.

I like the violation becasue it addresses the problem and is not inflamatory. Plus, if the coach does request and explanation, you can present him with fact that you had an alternative and you took the one that had the lessor penalty.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My point is that it seems to me that the original situation is as clear a case of this violation as you could have. The throw-in has started and a teammate of the inbounder steps OOB. That obviously fits 9-2-12. No judgment whatsoever is required to see that the rule has been broken.

However, it's not nearly as clear a case if you want to apply the technical foul rule. The player has to step OOB for an unauthorized reason. "Unauthorized" is usually interpreted to mean deceipt or to mean leaving the court while the ball is in play. Falling into the stands after saving an errant pass is not unauthorized. You can be OOB during play without getting a T.

But (other than the inbounder) you can't be OOB during a throw-in without having a violation.

Thanks, Chuck.

About says what I was going for.