Actually, I am serious. I can see calling it because it constitutes an unfair advantage, but technically the spot extends indefinitely away from the court, as long as he doesn't leave the three foot "spot." Is there an official interp on this? Or am I reading the rule wrong?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric Huechteman

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman Quote: I'd go with the technical foul because that section was written for this kind of situation. A player who leaves the court in order to get open is leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. I just rethought my position. I would also just call a violation for this reason: 9-2-12 specifically deals with this situation. To utilize a source that has no bearing here, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states that a specific statement, when it applies, always trumps a general statement. 9-2 deals specifically with throw-in provisions, whereas 10-3-3 deals only generally with stepping OOB.

Eric - as a parliamentarian and a referee, I have to recommend not trying to combine RONR and the NFHS rules - they just don't apply to each other. Besides, some of the guys here get confused when they see numbers bigger than 10. :p

(A)Rule 10 says that going OOB in any situation can be a technical foul.

(B)Rule 9 states that going OOB when a teammate is OOB for the throwin is a violation.



I see this as a violation for two reasons. First, the judgement and leeway allowed for in the technical foul means you can pass on applying rule 10. Second, the situation in B is merely a subset or a specific example of A. There's certainly room for exceptions within the rules - just look at the "normal backcourt landing" exception.


Bottom line - this could quickly turn into the "how do you get a 'T' for contacting the ball OOB on a throwin when you have to get a warning for reaching over the plane first?" discussion.

In this play, I call the T.
You need to look at the act done in this situation, which was to run OOB to avoid defense. Hold your whistle for a second, see the whole play, and make the call based on the entire action of the player, not just the first step. This reasoning is supported by the NFHS interp on having a T for breaking the plane and hitting the ball out of the thrower's hands. You don't just penalize with a violation for breaking the plane.

The purpose of the violation in rule 9 of the rules book is to prevent a team from switching throwers on a designated spot throw-in. It has nothing to do with a teammate stepping OOB on the other side of the court or 30 feet down the side line. That is covered by the technical foul in rule 10.

So to sum up, if you hand the ball to the thrower for a spot throw-in and then a teammate comes over and says, "Hey, I'll take it," you call a violation when he steps OOB, but if a player purposely runs OOB to get open for a pass, avoid a screen, set a screen, take a shot, etc., you have a technical foul.

Juulie, with your literary background, I cannot believe that you could misquote this classic passage!!

Ummm, sorry, but doesn't case 9.2.9 refer to rule 9-2-9?

Okay, I'll bite. It hasn't been a great week, so my sensibilities are a little blunted. What did I do wrong? Should I have said, "Wabbit season!!"?

Nope. It refers to rule 9-2-12. See the end of that casebook play. Casebook play numbers do not automatically match up with the same rule number. The rule reference(s) used to back up a casebook play is always at the end of that casebook play.

;)

Ok...favorite Bugs Bunny episodes from everyone...mine is a tie between the haunted castle where Bugs keeps mixing up "Hocus Pocus" and "Abracadabra" and changing Dracula into all kinds of weird creatures, OR the hill-billy square dance that Bugs calls...classic tv, classic...

Sorry to nitpick, but I think that the number in parens at the bottom of the case is a cross-reference. Since Rule 9-2-9 refers to replacing a thrower after the ball is at the throwers disposal, I think case 9.2.9 is refering to rule 9-2-9, with additional reference to rule 9-2-12. From the Foreword to the NFHS Case Book: "the play numbers identify the primary Rule, Section, Article of the rules book which support the interpretation.

By the way, whether or not this situation should be called a technical or a violation might be a good question to submit to a state association. Any volunteers?

Kudos to Jurassic for pointing out the ambiguity.

From the Foreword to the NFHS Case Book: "the play numbers identify the primary Rule, Section, Article of the rules book which support the interpretation.

[/B][/QUOTE]And, according to the above statement, rule 9-2-12 supports casebook interpretation 9.2.9. Therefore, the casebook play is basically explaining an actual situation covered under rule 9-2-12.

And, according to the above statement, rule 9-2-12 supports casebook interpretation 9.2.9. Therefore, the casebook play is basically explaining an actual situation covered under rule 9-2-12. [/B][/QUOTE]

According to the above, play number 9.2.9 identifies primary Rule 9 Section 2 Article 9. I think this contradicts what you stated in an earlier post, "Casebook play numbers do not automatically match up with the same rule number". According to the foreword, they do: "Example: 7.6.1 is the the case book play and 7-6-1 is the rules book reference".

The reference in quotes (9-2-12) seems to be a secondary rule reference, presumably to explain the penalty.

Sorry to be so particular. The confusing writing of the rule book is a pet peeve of mine.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Uh no, 10-3-3 deals <b>specifically</b> with players stepping out of bounds. It covers ALL situations, including throw-in situations. The only thing that you had right was that your source had no bearing at all on this situation.

Anything that covers "all situations" is by definition not specific. If I tell you that all animals should die, but not cats, your logic would mean that even cats should die, even though I SPECIFICALLY said otherwise.

Look at it this way: "If A1 steps out-of-bounds for an "unauthorized" reason, he should be called for a technical foul. If A1 steps out-of-bounds during a throw in by team A, he should be called for a violation." So we should take the rule dealing with stepping out of bounds over the rule dealing with stepping out of bounds during a throw in?