Dragged through the plane

[Adam]

Ugh, you can't just issue a warning on this since the hand actually made contact with the ball. The way it was described, it's either a held ball or a T.

I did ask about the T because of contact. Coordinator of officials said, no, because the contact occurred in-bounds. Even though the defender is still in contact with the ball when it went back through the plane, the contact was initiated in-bounds. Said the spirit of the rule when it comes to the T is that the contact is initiaited while the ball was OOB. I made a suggestion he might want to send this play to FED to see if we get an interpretation from them. I also suggested the possibility of a case play for next year's case book so that this "rare" play is covered. He said he's never seen it in his 30-plus years as an official.

[Adam]

If you think about it. It's not likely to happen at all. If B1 gets his hands on the ball on his side of the plane, A1 is going to be very unlikely to get the ball to his side without a struggle. You've got a held ball at the first sign of struggle.

If A1 gets it back without a struggle, B1 is not likely to have his hand on it.

The play described almost has B1 simply touching the ball as it goes back to the OOB side of the plane. This just isn't going to happen.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Ref Ump Welsch
Just contacted the state office (Nebraska) about this one, to see what their interpretation would be. They advised me if this were to happen in a game, just to blow it dead and issue a warning for reaching through the plane since B1 should have taken her hand off when it went back through the plane. The coordinator of officials said this sounded like a had to be there play to really make a strong call.

My hat's off to the Nebraska guy. Much of the hardest 'interpretation' is knowing - or deciding - which came first, the chicken or the egg. This is where an ad-hoc rules-based system like the basketball rules breaks down easily, where two rules appear to have jurisdiction - that is, you have broken the plane AND you have touched the ball.

Choosing the lesser penalty seems entirely appropriate.

In fact, this is one of the principles involved in my new rules system - I have cut the length of the rules in half without sacrificing granularity - only internal confusion and accidental obfuscation have been removed, to protect the innocent.

[Adam]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

My hat's off to the Nebraska guy. Much of the hardest 'interpretation' is knowing - or deciding - which came first, the chicken or the egg. This is where an ad-hoc rules-based system like the basketball rules breaks down easily, where two rules appear to have jurisdiction - that is, you have broken the plane AND you have touched the ball.

Choosing the lesser penalty seems entirely appropriate.

In fact, this is one of the principles involved in my new rules system - I have cut the length of the rules in half without sacrificing granularity - only internal confusion and accidental obfuscation have been removed, to protect the innocent.

The problem is that the rule specifically states that if the player reaches over the plane and contacts the ball, it's a T the first time. It's not just a warning, by rule. There's no ambiguity here. Not only is it a T, also serves as the warning. This is cut and dried, folks.
It's a T or it's a held ball. Nothing else is allowed by rule on this play; including a Delay of Game warning.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

The problem is that the rule specifically states that if the player reaches over the plane and contacts the ball, it's a T the first time. It's not just a warning, by rule. There's no ambiguity here. Not only is it a T, also serves as the warning. This is cut and dried, folks.
It's a T or it's a held ball. Nothing else is allowed by rule on this play; including a Delay of Game warning.

As Charles Ives might have said, read harder. The rule, as you say, says: "if the player reaches over the plane and contacts the ball . . . ."

This is 'reaches over the plane in contact with the ball.' It's not covered in the rules as written, even with the 'interpretation'.

There are LOTS of things like this.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
If you think about it. It's not likely to happen at all. If B1 gets his hands on the ball on his side of the plane, A1 is going to be very unlikely to get the ball to his side without a struggle. You've got a held ball at the first sign of struggle.

If A1 gets it back without a struggle, B1 is not likely to have his hand on it.

The play described almost has B1 simply touching the ball as it goes back to the OOB side of the plane. This just isn't going to happen.

While I don't doubt it is unlikely, I wouldn't agree with you that it just isn't going to happen. If the defender is tracing the ball properly, it might happen. What isn't likely to happen is that the official will see it if and when it happens. That would require a prepared mind. Lots of playing is high level pattern recognition. Officiating, too.

[Adam]

Good grief.

[Snake~eyes]

I'm calling OOB. Simple as that, how is it not OOB? Its not a T, warning or heldball.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
I'm calling OOB. Simple as that, how is it not OOB? Its not a T, warning or heldball.

OOB on whom?

[Snake~eyes]

Who ever is throwing it in.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
Who ever is throwing it in.

How? the ball was never released. The thrower has a right to be OOB with the ball.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

How? the ball was never released. The thrower has a right to be OOB with the ball.

Agreed but once the thrower touches inbounds he violates.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

Agreed but once the thrower touches inbounds he violates.

So, once B1 legally touches the ball, A1 has violated by being out of bounds? You gonna call that if B1 just slaps the ball while it's on his side of the plane?

Wait a sec. The thrower hasn't touched in bounds. He's touched the ball while the ball was in contact with a defensive player in bounds. Or are you saying that A1 violates by touching B1, who is standing in bounds?

[Edited by Snaqwells on Mar 2nd, 2005 at 02:25 PM]

Snake~eyes,

By your logic, both A1 and B1 would have to be called for OOB, because A1 is still OOB throwing in. If you call A1 for OOB because B1 contacts the ball on the "fake" in-bounds, then both are touching, therefore it would be OOB on both players.