sideline play

[Adam]

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?

[Mark Dexter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric Huechteman

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman

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.

[Mark Dexter]

(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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season --- Blammo!!!

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

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Actually, there is a casebook play applying 9-2-12. Casebook play 9.2.9. The (a) section is kinda interesting. It has a spot throw-in where the referee has placed the ball on the floor. Note that two A players go OOB in this one, and the violation is NOT called immediately. You only call the violation if the player without the ball doesn't immediately return in-bounds when his teammate picks up the ball.

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

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

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!!"?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

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

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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rainmaker
What did I do wrong? Should I have said, "Wabbit season!!"?

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season --- Blammo!!!

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...

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
[/B]

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.

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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.

[Eric Huechteman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Uh no, 10-3-3 deals specifically 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?