Where do these guys come from? Is there a stupid coach camp somewhere? Here's what happened:

First quarter, A1 to inbound, defender reaches over and commits boundary violation. I report it to bench.

Second quarter, same defender reaches over on an inbound and smacks ball before release. Player technical.

Fourth quarter with less than a minute to go and A up by 2, same defender reaches over on an inbound and loudly hacks inbounder across arm before release. Intentional foul. As I go to report, the coach starts yelling. He knows better than to challenge me on a ruling, so his comments are somewhat vague, i.e.: "What's that about", "How can that happen", etc.

I tell him it's a good thing for him that his player hit the arm and not the ball. This freezes him with his jaw open and his arms above his head. He kind of reminded me of a moose with antlers.

"Huh? What do you mean?", he stammered. I reply, "because he hit the hand, they will get two shots and the ball back but your player stays in the game. If he would have hit the ball instead, it would have been his second technical. The penalty is the same, but he would have been ejected."

A small smile starts to spread across his face at this time. "Oh yeah. You're right."

Here's the kicker - he then turns to his player and screams "GOOD FOUL, LUCAS. GOOOOOOOOD FOUL!" It was like Richard Dawson on the old Family Feud yelling "GOOD ANSWER." He then pats his player on the back a few times and tells him to do it again!!!

Do these guys take stupid pills or what?

I had this happen earlier in the year. It was right in front of the bench. A had the ball over her head (think like a soccer player). B jumped and spiked the ball out of her hands, and it landed in the lap of coach B's ASSt.

According to him, and he is/was the ultimate authority of fed rules, that is not, has never, and will never be a T.

Maybe they were twins.

PS - wouldn't it suck to have to fill out paperwork for the state because you tossed a kid for breaking the plane 2x.

Did he have a flying squirrel with him? "Whatever could this mean, Rocky?"

Help
 

Ok guys here is the still ever learning new ref. I know its in the book, but im reading the forum.

Please explain breaking the plane.

1. Can a defensive player break the plane as long as he doesn't touch player or ball while still in players hand?

2. Is it violation for defense to step on the OOB line, defending inbounds play? what is the penalty if violation

3. Cover the possibilities if you have time.

Connected to this. Is it a inbounds violation when the offense releases the ball and hits OOB floor before inbounds or player inbounds?

Thanks

1st Year Ref, learning!

Re: Help
 

1) Yes the player can break the plane -- but not legally. ;) It's a warning the first time and a <b>team</b> T the second time any player on the team breaks the plane.

2) Wouldn't the defense have to break the plane to step on the line?

3) Break the plane, don't make contact with the ball or the player -- warning the first time, team T the second (and subsequent)

Break the plane, make contact with the ball (before it's been released) -- Individual T. This also serves as the "breaking the plane warning"

Break the plane, foul the inbounder -- Intentional foul. This also serves as the "breaking the plane warning."

breaking the plane
 

"1. Can a defensive player break the plane as long as he doesn't touch player or ball while still in players hand?"

No. Not until the ball has touched a player on the court.


"2. Is it violation for defense to step on the OOB line, defending inbounds play? what is the penalty if violation "

Yep. The OOB line is part of the plane. Same rule applies. Penalty is a warning for delay of game. Reported to the table (at which time the scorer should record time that it happened)and the coach. Second infraction for delay of game is a team technical (not assessed to the coach as either direct or indirect). BTW, not to state the obvious, but there are other instances besides a throw-in plane violation by the defense that will incure a delay of game warning/technical. Also, the offense is not allowed to break the plane either.


"Connected to this. Is it an inbounds violation when the offense releases the ball and hits OOB floor before inbounds or player inbounds? "

yes

check the Rule 9 section in your funny book (Simplified and Illustrated NFHS rule book). It does a good job of explaining your questions.....with pictures even...bonus :)

Re: breaking the plane
 

Where did you ever get this?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thadrus
"1. Can a defensive player break the plane as long as he doesn't touch player or ball while still in players hand?"

No. Not until the ball has touched a player on the court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where did you ever get this?



sorry. Have no idea. Was probably in a bigger hurry than I should have been when replying. Probably just thinking faster than I could type.

Re: Help
 

Connected to this. Is it a inbounds violation when the offense releases the ball and hits OOB floor before inbounds or player inbounds?

Thanks

1st Year Ref, learning! [/B][/QUOTE]


bainemc:

In response to this part of your question; yes, it would be a violation on the throw-in team.

Rule 9-2-2: The thrower shall not fail to pass the ball directly into the court so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

As thadrus indicated, there's an illustration of this exact scenario on page 58 of the NFHS picture book.
(Simplified and Illustrated)

Sven

Another FIne Example
 

Opening tip last night ... Red jumper cleanly taps the ball OOB. We go to inbound the ball to White. Both coaches are off the bench hollering. Red coach wants us to rejump because "it is a jump ball violation". White coach wants us to rejump because "that's not a violation". Say what? Unbelievable stuff!

We inbounded the ball to White and off we went. No time for a rules clinic.

Once the ball is released by the thrower, the defender is allowed to break the plane.

OK now that we understand the book rule. Lets talk common sense rule. I won't give a warning unless it effects the play.

"Unless it affects the play......."
 

"I won't give a warning unless it effects the play. "

A part of me has a real problem with this statement. Along with the "advantage/disadvantage" statements. I really do understand the reasoning and I do call by advantage or disadvantage (though I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it). I read very recently in one of the threads that if a point guard is bringing the ball down court, unguarded, and travels or double dribbles, they haven't gained an advantage, but we'll all call it. If the rule is broken, why don't we call it. It seems that every year our state association tells the officials to emphasize things like palming and intentional fouls and every year the veteren refs say "I'm not gonna call it unless they are using it to take advantage" so naturally the new refs have to call it the same way or they'll never move up. Meanwhile, we keep chipping away at the rule book.

More specifically, your statement concerns me because....What if team A violated in the first quarter and you didn't report the warning. It is now tied with 2 sec in the game and team A violates again. Since you didn't call it earlier it is just a warning instead of a technical and we're quite possibly going to overtime instead of team B (again possibly) winning outright.

Re:
 

This is a great post (I mean the quote, not necessarily what I'm typing here). I agree with virtually everything you say. How can a ref assume a defender doesn't "gain an advantage" when breaking the plane sometimes, and sometimes he does? Even if you think he "doesn't", it could be that his hand position prevented the inbounder from deciding to attempt to throw the ball that way, because now the angle of flight is cut way down.

I do need to comment, however, on your example of the consequences of not calling the warning early and therefore having it effect a call in the last seconds. You are right on in stating this affects the game. The case book says that if the clock is running, you ignore a boundary violation like this one since it would give a trailing defensive team an unfair advantage, i.e.: committing a violation and being rewarded by having the clock stop. But if you had properly called the warning earlier, this second violation would be a T and their "advantage" would be nullified, even though the clock would stop. So you see, not calling the warning earlier could have an even bigger influence on the game than you first imagined.

Not calling it is just another example of refs thinking that by not enforcing the rules and/or not calling the game consistently from start to finish (for instance, requiring "blood" for a foul late in the game) that they are letting the players decide the outcome when in fact, it's just the other way around.

Re: Another FIne Example
 

rpwall,

Since you went with the throw-in, instead of the coaches' requests for re-jump on the "violation/non-violation", what did you do with the arrow? Did they holler about that decision, too?

Martin

I had the jump ball situation last night, green tipped OOB. White got the ball, and green got the arrow. I thought and thought about this during dead balls. Green had first possesion, the tip, and therefor white should get the arrow and the ball. I discussed this with my partner and he stated that green never had control of the ball. I did not press the issue. At half time I went to look this up and I found a couple of things, but the question is does the tip considered control. I now we were wrong, but I was not about to debate a rule I did not know inside and out.

When there is no team control (such as during a jump ball), team control is established when player control is established. Player control is defined as a player "holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds". If a player on a jump just tips the ball, he is not holding or dribbling it. Therefore, no player control. Therefore, no team control.

You made the right call.

So I was so wrong, I was right?

I tip is not considered control. If the player merely tipped the ball out of bounds, you did the correct thing. That is, if Green tips it out, White gets the ball for the throw-in and Green gets the arrow.

The only case where a team gets the arrow AND the ball on the jump is if the other team's jumper catches the ball before it has been touched by anyone else.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

Originally posted by Bradley Batt The only case where a team gets the arrow AND the ball on the jump is if the other team's jumper catches the ball before it has been touched by anyone else.

Or before it has hit the ground, a basket or a backboard. BTW - I finally figured out why they still have the "backboard" in this rule. I mean, let's get real - who can tip the ball from the center circle directly off a backboard (or a basket, for that matter?). I think it's a holdover from the days when we actually had jump balls during a game and some were administered in the free throw jump circles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett Quote: Originally posted by Bradley Batt The only case where a team gets the arrow AND the ball on the jump is if the other team's jumper catches the ball before it has been touched by anyone else. Or before it has hit the ground, a basket or a backboard.

And there are some others too, are there not. Non-jumper into the circle early, double tip by the jumper, etc. I'm hoping that any jump ball violation is 'ball and arrow'.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thadrus

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett Quote: Originally posted by Mark Padgett Quote: Originally posted by Bradley Batt The only case where a team gets the arrow AND the ball on the jump is if the other team's jumper catches the ball before it has been touched by anyone else. Or before it has hit the ground, a basket or a backboard. And there are some others too, are there not. Non-jumper into the circle early, double tip by the jumper, etc. I'm hoping that any jump ball violation is 'ball and arrow'.

Hope all you want -- it's not true.

See, the "jumper catching the ball" is simultaneous control and violation. The arrow is set based on a team gaining control -- so the arrow is set to B's basket as soon as A catches the ball. It's also a violation, so B gets the ball. Two things happened; two rulings -- they both happen to favor B. It's just as if B2 caught the tip, then immediately travelled. Note that in this case, the arrow is set before the throw-in.

On all the other violations, team control is never established, so the arrow doesn't get set as a result of the jump ball action. It gets set as a result of the violation -- A violates, so B gets the ball. B getting the ball results in the arrow being set for A. Note that in this case the arrow isn't set until the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in inbounder.

Re: Re: Another FIne Example
 

Initial arrow to Red ... I doubt they noticed/considered the arrow or I am sure we would have gotten some assistance on that rule, too!

Thanks. I can't recall ever having to deal with this personally, but I would have called it wrong (and maybe I did). Your explanation helps a lot. I did kinda thumb through the rule book and case book over lunch. Did I miss something or is the book kinda weak on this point. Will have dig a little deeper.

Thanks again

There are a lot of references that must all be considered together to understand this situation.

6-4-7 Neither jumper shall catch the jump ball.

In this case, Catch=violation and catch=control

6-3-1 The team obtaining control of the jump ball starts the alternating-possession procedure. The arrow is set toward the opponent's basket. Control may also be established by the results of a violation or foul, as in 4-3.

4-3 Alternating-possession control is established and the initial direction of the possession arrow is set toward the opponent's basket when:
ART. 1 . . . A player secures control of the ball, as after the jump ball.
ART. 3 . . . The ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower after:
a. A violation during or following the jump before a player secures control.

In the two other cases you cite, the violation occurs during or following the jump and before a player secured control, so 4-3-3 comes into play. In the scenario when the jumper catches the ball, player control occurs along with the violation. Establishment of player control gives the arrow to the opponents as per 4-3-1 (and, as is clear in the language of 4-3-3, negates that provision). The violation of 6-4-7 also gives ball to the opponents.

reaching thru plane
 

Ths is in response to Bob's post up above.
He stated that ) Yes the player can break the plane -- but not legally. It's a warning the first time and a team T the second time any player on the team breaks the plane.

I must disagee. check out page 72 the only Team T's are the administrative. This T is charged to the player!

Re: reaching thru plane
 

10-1(Team Technicals)-10 "Following the team warning for delay ... commit a violation of the throw-in boundary plane"

Page 72, under the admin (team) section "violation after team warning for delay"

Mereely reaching through the plane (after the warning) is a team T. Reaching through and touching or dislodging the ball is an individual T.

The breaking the plane vs dislodging the ball is a tough one to handle. Any delay is a team T, this is what breaking the plane is-delay. When you dislodge the ball, the player gets the T becuause they caused the contact.

I had a play last year where A already had a warning for delay. A1 reached through and smacked the ball out of B1's hands while she was trying to inbound.

Feeling charitable I called it a team T, instead of a player T (it was middle school, I figured why punish her more). I told the coach she broke the plane, before she dislodged the ball. I guess it could have gone either way, I chose not to single her out.

I have to agree with Kelvin. According to Page 72, 'delay of game' and 'reaching thru the plane to dislodge the ball' are both listed as individual T's. Not team T's.

However, upon further review, I see what Bob is talking about on page 72. Evidently the 'delaying game' reference under "Players" is...........is what. How is this any different than 'violation after warning for delay. Can someone explain how a player would get T'd for delaying game but it not be covered under 'violation after warning for delay'? If it was sufficient to delay yet not warrant a warning first, wouldn't this be a flagrent situation and fall under 'unsportsmanlike'?

[Edited by thadrus on Feb 1st, 2001 at 08:51 AM]

The "delay of game" mentioned in the "Players" section on page 72 refers to 10-3-7. The examples given do not include reaching through the plane on a throw-in.

And, no, it's not flagrant.