Team A taking the ball out on the sideline
A1 attempts to put the ball in play.
A2 and A3 sets a pick along the sidelines for A4
A4 is guarded very closely and briefly runs out of bounds to avoid the closely guarded B4 player and the ball is successfully passed into A4 back safely inbounds.

I watched this play 4 times and nothing was called. To me this is a violation having two offensive players out of bounds once the ball was put in play.

Then I got thinking, if this same play occurred after a made basket would it still be a violation? A rule citation would be helpful (NFHS)

thanks
Stew in Va
CVBOA

You are correct, it sounds like this should be a violation.

After a made basket, I'd say no violation, since the throwing team may have as many players out of bounds (up to 5 of course) as they'd like.

Violation. Rule 9-2-12 . . . No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins.

Thanks for the quote and information- So on a throw in after a made basket the play would have been legal. Ok two years into this and I'm always asking questions- so much to know- so little time.
Glad I got this one right
Stew in VA
CVBOA

Yup. You got it.

Hey, if you stop asking, then you get yourself into trouble.

Why not a technical foul as per rule 10-3-3- <i>"A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason...."</i>. Isn't it a T under that rule as soon as soon as A4 steps OOB? Of course, isn't it also a violation under Rule 9-2-12 as soon as A4 steps OOB also? Which rule has precedent over the other, and why?

Discuss amongst yourselves. :D

Sigh. Stir that pot. . .

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

I'd go with the violation - it's more specific to this situation.

What? That's a legitimate question. Why would the rule that you cited take precedence over the rule I cited? And vice/versa?

Seriously!!

Why is it more "specific"? :confused:

Seriously? B/c the rule I cited deals specifically with the throw-in. If you were supposed to give a T for that infraction, 9-2-12 wouldn't need to be in the book.

Why is it more "specific"? :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]
See above. :)

Then why is 10-3-3 in the book?

See above. :) [/B][/QUOTE]See above.

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?

Big word.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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!!

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.

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.

Thanks, Chuck.

About says what I was going for.

1) C'mon, Chuck. You ain't Ronnie Rookie. You're not gonna call that violation if A4 just steps on the OOB line. You're gonna call it as soon as you think that A4 is OOB to gain an advantage, and not until then! And it's at that exact same point- recognizing that A4 is OOB to gain an advantage- that you can also call the T, by rule.

2) apples and oranges!

Btw, if you get tired of arguing this, we could always switch sides for a while. You argue for the T, and I'll argue for a violation.

Sounds reasonable to me.

ok it was my question so I can now answer and the thread is over:
Call the violation. It fits the crime

Stew in Va
CVBOA

ok it was my question so I can now answer and the thread is over:
Call the violation. It fits the crime

and besides the ball is live not dead- so a technical just doesn't fit here.

Stew in Va
CVBOA

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

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.

Ah, but Chuck, if he simply steps on the bleachers behind him, has he really left the spot?

Stew, you might want to rethink this. There are at least a hundred scenarios where a T fits during live ball play.

What it sounds like to me is the ex-lax is finally kicking in.

good job Jurassic
 

Jurassic Referee, I am glad you brought this up because when I read the original thread the thought of 10-3-3 entered my mind as well. You're right; it is worth a discussion. You never said which way you would call it, but it begs the question.

It seems to me that we all agree that this is at minimum a violation. Personally, I would go with this. A turnover is a reasonable punishment to me. Two shots and the ball is a little harsh. I have seen, the thrower release the ball, run behind the screen by staying out of bounds and enter the court to receive a pass- in this situation, it's definitely a T- but I only call it if the pass comes back to that player, hence an advantage gained.

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.

[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.

The distinction is clearly indistinct.

However, since the case book gives 3 illustrations of applying 10-3-3 and none of applying 9-2-12, a technical should be assessed, based on the preponderance of evidence.:)

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.
[/B][/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.

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.

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season!!

Rabbit season!!

Rabbit season!!

Duck season --- Blammo!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias Quote: 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. Ah, but Chuck, if he simply steps on the bleachers behind him, has he really left the spot?

Didn't see the smileys....are you serious?

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?