Point of Emphasis at Work

[SMEngmann]

Today I had a situation that tested the points of emphasis in a bizarre game and I wanted to see what you guys would have done. Girls varsity game, I ejected coach B with two Ts earlier in the 4th quarter (separate incidents), and Team B led by 2 with 9.4 seconds to go and was inbounding at division line following an excessive timeout technical on team A (Chris Webber reincarnated). B1 inbounding the ball and B2 runs around A1 out of bounds in front of the inbounds passer and receives the ball. I had anticipated the play but came up with a no-call, which I regret to a point now, as team B was able to run several seconds off the clock before team A fouled (they had 1 to give). I admittedly thought about the advantage B got from going OOB and considered the ramifications had I T'ed B2, which would have given team A two shots to tie plus the ball, plus the fact that it probably would have led to an ejection of team Bs assistant and a real ugly situation, but I did ignore the POE. Had I called the T, I would've had a helluva time in my opinion trying to explain myself and my call to any evaluator or others in the association. What would you have done in this situation, and if you think I was right, why do we have a POE like this if it would be considered the wrong call, a "ticky-tack" over-officious call in a situation like this?

[zebraman]

I'm not sure what I would have called in that sitch. Hard to say. It sure is a harsh penalty that the NFHS wants us to enforce. It's kind of like the technical foul that they wanted called for a thrown elbow that didn't hit anyone. Very few refs called it so they eventually changed it to a violation.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them change the "running out of bounds" play to a violation at some point because I don't know many refs who would have called the T in your situation either.

Z

[SMEngmann]

In that situation the NCAA rule would have been better to enforce, a violation. Also, if NFHS went to point of interruption of T's I would have had a much easier time calling the T as well, but two shots and the ball is extreme for running OOB. Hopefully they change it, but I'm still wrestling with whether or not I did the right thing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
B1 inbounding the ball and B2 runs around A1 out of bounds in front of the inbounds passer and receives the ball. I had anticipated the play but came up with a no-call, which I regret to a point now, as team B was able to run several seconds off the clock before team A fouled (they had 1 to give). I admittedly thought about the advantage B got from going OOB and considered the ramifications had I T'ed B2, which would have given team A two shots to tie plus the ball, plus the fact that it probably would have led to an ejection of team Bs assistant and a real ugly situation, but I did ignore the POE. Had I called the T, I would've had a helluva time in my opinion trying to explain myself and my call to any evaluator or others in the association.

If you really did anticipate the play, quietly commenting to the B players to "stay inbounds" before you administered the throw-in may have eased your reluctance to call the "T". If they ignored your polite warning, well.....

Might be a good idea to talk this one over with your evaluator anyway. Get his input as to how he wants this type of situation handled.

[Ref in PA]

9-2-12 "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins." Immediate violation on B2 when he/she steps oob.

The "T" could also be argued at the proper call, but I would go with the violation.

[ref18]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
9-2-12 "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins." Immediate violation on B2 when he/she steps oob.

The "T" could also be argued at the proper call, but I would go with the violation.

Nice catch Ref in PA, way to read that book.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
9-2-12 "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins." Immediate violation on B2 when he/she steps oob.

The "T" could also be argued at the proper call, but I would go with the violation.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ding, ding, ding......We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You had an easy way out and didn't take it. Now you're really going to be shaking your head. Oh well, live and learn my friend.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
... Had I called the T, I would've had a helluva time in my opinion trying to explain myself and my call to any evaluator or others in the association.

First of all, why would there be any explaining to do?
Secondly, why would you have a hard time in doing so?

The point I am trying to make is; unless your evaluators 'pre-instructed' you on certain situations and how they wanted things called, you should never lose faith in the rule book for support.

[chayce]

Folks,

I posed this question to our state coordinator who in turn queried Mary Struckoff, the rules editor for NFHS. Here is the reply. It is indeed a violation..not a technical foul.

Chad




Chad: FYI

-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:08:33 -0500
From: "Mary Struckhoff"
Subject: RE: (fwd) Rule Clarification


I agree 100%....violation on the throw-in....that's why I think the rule should be looked at in April.

M



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Boucher [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:59 PM
To: Mary Struckhoff
Subject: (fwd) Rule Clarification


Mary, seems to me this is only a violation, but I'm interested in your thoughts?

-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:43:08 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Rule Clarification


Larry,

After the meeting tonight, we had some further discussion about one of the 2004-2005 Points of Emphasis that we would like to have clarified. It is in reference to "Player Positioning/Status (Players on the Court). From page 3 of the rule revision sheet, "A common example is an offensive player getting around a screen/defensive player by running out of bounds...officials must enforce the rule that has long been in place - a technical foul." This is commentary on Rule 10.3.3 which says, "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out of bounds," and is penalized by a technical foul.

The question we have is related to a designated spot throw-in where two offensive players are out of bounds simultaneously. For example: A1 is the thrower on a designated spot throw in. A2 in trying to get around B2 steps out of bounds and becomes the second offensive player out of bounds on the throw-in. Is this a violation or technical foul?

According to 9.2.12, "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins," the result of which is a violation. I have not been able to find any further reference to this rule in either the Case Book or the Simplified & Illustrated Manual but some have interpreted this rule as an exception to 10.3.3 to say that a second offensive player out of bounds on a designated spot throw-in is a violation and not a technical.

We have had the above described play called in two different ways with each of the rules cited as an explanation of either a technical foul or a violation. We certainly want to be consistent as a region in what we are calling so we want to enlist your help with this one. Thanks in advance!

Regards,

Chad Ellis
Vice-President
8th Region Officials Association

[DJ]

Hummm. Seems like the same advantage gained but two different penalties. What is the logic behind the illogic? If I leave the court to avoid a screen or to avoid a box out it is different if I avoid a defender to then gain a chance to receive an inbounds? I realize it's in the rule book but what is the difference. We need a change somewhere to define consistancy for this redundant interpetation.

[DJ]

They should both be violations or both technicals but not one of each. Either the rule is bad or the interpetation is bad!!

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by DJ
They should both be violations or both technicals but not one of each. Either the rule is bad or the interpetation is bad!!

Not so difficult really.....

When the team mate of the player inbounding the ball goes out of bounds, even incidentally, the violation immediately occurs making the ball dead and there is no advantage gained by the inbounding team. This is by specific rule (9-2-12).

Conversely, I believe the POE is aimed at situations while the ball is in play where a player intentionally leaves the court & returns in an attempt to gain an advantage -ie: post player going OOB along baseline to get around defender that has established inside position, then coming back onto court to receive pass.


Personally, I would prefer it to be a violation as opposed to a "T". As it was with the swinging elbows, you probably won't see it called much unless it's really blatant.

[DJ]

I can see why it could not be a violation to intentionally leave the court because if you were a defensive player and you did this a violation would cause you to stop the game and resume from the point of the infraction which would be to award the ball back to the offensive team nearest the point of the infraction. My logic was not logic and I apologize.