Wrong team takes the ball OOB

[jdccpa]

During my rookie season while doing a junior high game I had the following take place:
Blue team called a time out after a successful free throw by the white team. Typically in a junior high game with 15 players on the roster the coachs' make wholesale substitutions during these time outs.

At the end of the time out all 10 players were mulling around at midcourt trying to sort out defensive assignments.

Horn blows and I place the ball on the floor and yell "Blue ball" and start my count. When the players look and see the ball on the floor and me counting they (all ten) take off running towards me and the ball.

In a blur a white player inbounded the ball to a teammate who immediately put the ball into the basket. So help me with the scrum in front of me I didn't see who actually inbounded the ball. I thought white had intercepted the inbounds pass.

My partner blows his whistle and comes running.

We cancelled the white basket and started over again with Blue taking the ball out of bounds.
(We determined that the situtation was as a result of confusion.)

At the time, Casebook 10.1.8 seemed to cover this situation but the 2004-05 case book has eliminated the reference to "immediately....following a time out".
Does 10.1.8 now only apply to situations "immediately" following a goal or free throw" and if it happens after a time out we would now have an unsporting technical foul?

[Edited by jdccpa on Aug 15th, 2004 at 07:22 PM]

[mick]

Originally posted by jdccpa
During my rookie season while doing a junior high game I had the following take place:
Blue team called a time out after a successful free throw by the white team. Typically in a junior high game with 15 players on the roster the coachs' make wholesale substitutions during these time outs.

At the end of the time out all 10 players were mulling around at midcourt trying to sort out defensive assignments.

Horn blows and I place the ball on the floor and yell "Blue ball" and start my count. When the players look and see the ball on the floor and me counting they (all ten) take off running towards me and the ball.

In a blur a white player inbounded the ball to a teammate who immediately put the ball into the basket. So help me with the scrum in front of me I didn't see who actually inbounded the ball. I thought white had intercepted the inbounds pass.

My partner blows his whistle and comes running.

We cancelled the white basket and started over again with Blue taking the ball out of bounds.
(We determined that the situtation was as a result of confusion.)

At the time, Casebook 10.1.8 seemed to cover this situation but the 2004-05 case book has eliminated the reference to "immediately....following a time out".
Does 10.1.8 now only apply to situations "immediately" following a goal or free throw" and if it happens after a time out we would now have an unsporting technical foul?

[Edited by jdccpa on Aug 15th, 2004 at 07:22 PM]

jdccpa,
With this being a Junior High game and with the players aged in the lower teens, we can allow some room for the confusion/lack-of-knowledge factors.

With wholesale changes and apparent confusion reigning, we can apply 3-3(e) without the young players (captains, if they exist) requesting matchups.
We make that decision for the good of the game. We can take a breath let 'em sort things out (maybe with help), then administer a few seconds later.

We, too, can apply 6-3 and 9-2-11 to effect a violation as opposed to looking for a technical foul.

We have some leeway to use for game management, as we wish, ...for the good of the game.
mick

[mick]

Originally posted by jdccpa
... but the 2004-05 case book has eliminated the reference to "immediately....following a time out".

When did you get a new case book, or where did you see a copy?
Thanks.
mick

[jdccpa]

I ordered it on line from NFHS; received it about a month ago.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by jdccpa
I ordered it on line from NFHS; received it about a month ago.

Please share the case play, for "face guarding". We have been waiting to find out. Thanks.

[mick]

Originally posted by jdccpa
I ordered it on line from NFHS; received it about a month ago.

Good goin'!
I expect mine anyday now.
mick

[rainmaker]

Thanks for getting your own thread. "Now, how come no one's responding to mine?!?," she asked petulantly. (Anyone who takes pity on my very whiny attitude can post an interesting Resuming PLay Procedure play from one of your own games onto my Resuming Play Procedure thread.)

[mick]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Thanks for getting your own thread. "Now, how come no one's responding to mine?!?," she asked petulantly. (Anyone who takes pity on my very whiny attitude can post an interesting Resuming PLay Procedure play from one of your own games onto my Resuming Play Procedure thread.)

...you didn't play nicely.

[jdccpa]

As requested -

2004-05 Casebook:

Part I Comments on the 2004-05 Revisions

OBSTRUCTING AN OPPONENT'S VISION RULE EXPANDED (10-3-7d):
Purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hands(s)near his or her eyes now also includes the player with the ball. Previously the rule only prohibited the act against a player without the ball. Guarding a player's eyes should not be allowed as an effort to obstruct any player's movement and is an unsafe act. It is a technical foul whether or not the player has the ball.

Part 2 Other play situations

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties

OBSTRUCTING OPPONENT'S VISION

*10.3.7 SITUATION A: Does holding or moving a hand or hands in front of the face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitute unsporting tactics? RULING: Yes. The described action is illegal. It is unsporting for a guard to take a position behing a post player, or to take a position facing an opponent, or to take a position with his/her back to the ball and facing the opponent and then in either case, wave or hold the hands in front of the opponent's eyes so that the opponent cannot see. Holding or waving hands near the eye for the ostensible purpose of obstructing an opponent's vision is unsporting. (10-3-7c; 10-6-1)

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by jdccpa
As requested -

2004-05 Casebook:

Part I Comments on the 2004-05 Revisions

OBSTRUCTING AN OPPONENT'S VISION RULE EXPANDED (10-3-7d):
Purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hands(s)near his or her eyes now also includes the player with the ball. Previously the rule only prohibited the act against a player without the ball. Guarding a player's eyes should not be allowed as an effort to obstruct any player's movement and is an unsafe act. It is a technical foul whether or not the player has the ball.

Part 2 Other play situations

Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties

OBSTRUCTING OPPONENT'S VISION

*10.3.7 SITUATION A: Does holding or moving a hand or hands in front of the face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitute unsporting tactics? RULING: Yes. The described action is illegal. It is unsporting for a guard to take a position behing a post player, or to take a position facing an opponent, or to take a position with his/her back to the ball and facing the opponent and then in either case, wave or hold the hands in front of the opponent's eyes so that the opponent cannot see. Holding or waving hands near the eye for the ostensible purpose of obstructing an opponent's vision is unsporting. (10-3-7c; 10-6-1)

Great, they make the change and don't address the most likely case where it will happen, on a shooter.

You'd think they'd have learned from last year's LGP mess.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by mick

...you didn't play nicely.

what did I do wrong?

[mick]

Originally posted by rainmaker

what did I do wrong?

Well, you scared everyone off with your ferrous fury and ferric fist or you selected a topic where only I screwed up.
mick

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Great, they make the change and don't address the most likely case where it will happen, on a shooter.

You'd think they'd have learned from last year's LGP mess.

Doesn't the shooter have the ball? How would you phrase this to make it clearer?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

Doesn't the shooter have the ball? How would you phrase this to make it clearer?

I'm talking about jumping at the shooter and getting a hand up. The way coaches have been coaching since the first game, "Get a hand in their face."

Is that "holding" or "waving", is that even IN the rule? It's the same as last year when they screwed up the LGP on the floor change.

Change is fine, but say what you mean and have case plays that clearly state what is or is not against the rule.

[mick]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I'm talking about jumping at the shooter and getting a hand up. The way coaches have been coaching since the first game, "Get a hand in their face."

Blindzebra,

If the rule is unclear, then we must use our numerous skills of judgment.
I have no doubt that you will see and identify the unsporting act, if it happens.

mick