I'll add that I object to the NFHS definition of object!
Basketball is being invaded by the PC.
BTW, if people are not considered objects, then why the need to state "any object other than a player" in 7-1-1. By wording it that way, people other than players must be considered objects.

webster.com has:
1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance> b : something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed... the object poisons sight; let it be hid -- Shakespeare>
2 : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or action is directed <an object for study> <the object of my affection>

[Edited by Nevadaref on Oct 29th, 2004 at 11:05 AM]

I don't care what Chuck says about you, you're OK. Thanks for the heads up.



Not anymore - a quick trip to the doctor cleared that up.

Serious question: If the player does gain an advantage by touching a person who is OOB is this a violation or a T?

I think the answer is clear under nfhs. I believe their rule says it's a T for going OOB for an unauthorized reason (I don't have my new book yet, did they change the wording on that?). So you go with the violation.

Just a guess, but probably because "players" are supposed to stay in-bounds by rule(except for noted exceptions), whereas other people such as officials, coaches, cheerleaders, photographers, etc. don't have to be.

What I don't like is that the NFHS put in a new, fairly major interpretation, and then didn't bother to point it out to us. It's not listed in the front of the book(s) or on their site anywhere either, as far as I know. If I hadn't have noticed it surfing the case book, I would have answered it the same as you did. Not the first time that the FED has done this either.

Yeah, try explaining to the wife why she has to take antibiotics for your,uh, case of the flu. :D

That's a heckuva question too. I tried to figure out a situation where a player COULD gain an advantage by touching a person OOB, and the only one I could come up with is a player holding the ball, starting to lose his balance, and then touching a nearby coach standing OOB to regain his balance. Not too likely to happen for sure, but what-if? The NCAA has the easy call- violation-, but I think that it's still a "T" if you strictly apply the current NFHS rule. You gotta call something in this case because the player certainly did gain an unfair advantage, but is there any alternative to a "T"?

It is a good question, and your sitch is exactly the one I had in mind too. And I started to write something about the ncaa case as well but since it's a violation either way I left it out. Now, if we can somehow figure out how this might happen in order to deceive, then we have a T and something to talk about :)

But I don't get why we're forced to T the kid for this. If he's lost his balance & uses a person OOB to keep himself in doesn't he gain an advantage & fit the newly worded HS case play?

I tried to figure out a situation where a player COULD gain an advantage by touching a person OOB, and the only one I could come up with is a player holding the ball, starting to lose his balance, and then touching a nearby coach standing OOB to regain his balance. Not too likely to happen for sure, but what-if? You gotta call something in this case because the player certainly did gain an unfair advantage, but is there any alternative to a "T"? [/B][/QUOTE]

But I don't get why we're forced to T the kid for this. If he's lost his balance & uses a person OOB to keep himself in doesn't he gain an advantage & fit the newly worded HS case play?
[/B][/QUOTE]That's the problem with this case play. It says that it ISN'T a violation if you accidentally touch a person OOB. What it doesn't definitively say that it IS a violation if you DELIBERATELY touch an OOB person to gain an advantage. It doesn't really say what the penalty is in that case, and the only reference that I know of in the NFHS rule book is R10-3-3- "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason".

But I don't get why we're forced to T the kid for this. If he's lost his balance & uses a person OOB to keep himself in doesn't he gain an advantage & fit the newly worded HS case play?
[/B][/QUOTE]That's the problem with this case play. It says that it ISN'T a violation if you accidentally touch a person OOB. What it doesn't definitively say that it IS a violation if you DELIBERATELY touch an OOB person to gain an advantage. It doesn't really say what the penalty is in that case, and the only reference that I know of in the NFHS rule book is R10-3-3- "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason". [/B][/QUOTE]

Wait.

As soon as A1 regains his balance by touching you, or the coach, or a cheerleader or fan I imagine, either deliberately or not, he has gained an advantage. Since the case play is there to help us with 7-1-1 isn't it fair to assume he's now violated the OOB rule? And what's the penalty for violating the OOB rule? Not a T.

That's the problem with this case play. It says that it ISN'T a violation if you accidentally touch a person OOB. What it doesn't definitively say that it IS a violation if you DELIBERATELY touch an OOB person to gain an advantage. It doesn't really say what the penalty is in that case, and the only reference that I know of in the NFHS rule book is R10-3-3- "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason". [/B][/QUOTE]

Wait.

As soon as A1 regains his balance by touching you, or the coach, or a cheerleader or fan I imagine, either deliberately or not, he has gained an advantage. Since the case play is there to help us with 7-1-1 isn't it fair to assume he's now violated the OOB rule? And what's the penalty for violating the OOB rule? Not a T.

[/B][/QUOTE]According to R10-3-3, the penalty for violating the OOB rule IS a "T" if you gain an unfair advantage by doing so. There's nothing in the re-written case play 7.1.1.SitA that says anything different, or states that the penalty is a violation in this particular case only. The only thing that I can get out of the re-written case play is that you now do consider the player OOB if he deliberately touches someone OOB to gain an advantage- which leads back to R10-3-3.

Personally, I WANT it to be a violation and not a "T". I like the NCAA rule.

PS-Dan- E-mail me when you get a chance.

Wait.

As soon as A1 regains his balance by touching you, or the coach, or a cheerleader or fan I imagine, either deliberately or not, he has gained an advantage. Since the case play is there to help us with 7-1-1 isn't it fair to assume he's now violated the OOB rule? And what's the penalty for violating the OOB rule? Not a T.

[/B][/QUOTE]According to R10-3-3, the penalty for violating the OOB rule IS a "T" if you gain an unfair advantage by doing so. There's nothing in the re-written case play 7.1.1.SitA that says anything different, or states that the penalty is a violation in this particular case only. The only thing that I can get out of the re-written case play is that you now do consider the player OOB if he deliberately touches someone OOB to gain an advantage- which leads back to R10-3-3.

Personally, I WANT it to be a violation and not a "T". I like the NCAA rule.

PS-Dan- E-mail me when you get a chance.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I see what you're getting at.

Nice catch JR. Haven't got that far in this year's case book yet. I did read the changes however and as you note, it wasn't listed.....!!!!

Z

to use that rule, you would have to leave bounds intentionally, i don't think they are considering, "touching someone oob, going oob intentionally",... but i'm like you guys, i would rather call a violation instead of a "t" for doing going oob intentionally....
And if i grab on to someone to keep from falling or losing balance, i consider that doing it intenionally to gain an advantage, then it would be a violation oob!

I agee. FEd (and NCAA) still has the case play of a player "saving a ball" then coming back in and touching the ball as being legal.

I suspect (and I have nothing to back this up) that some poor kid was dribbling aliong the sideline when s/he accidentally made contact with a coach who was standing in the coaching box. The official rightly called OOB, the coach of the offensive player got upset and the rule was changed.

And, at least the FED put an asterisk next to the case play. They've made other changes in the past without even that notification.