some of my age long questions
#1:
is the tip of the hair (curly but not long) considered the "body" of a player? if the ball touches a player's hair only, (not the scalp), without any change in its direction and go OOB, do you consider that player is the "last touched" by the ball? does it apply to pony tail too?

#2: A1 is holding the ball and looking for a pass, B1 sneaks up and bats A1's hand and sends the ball OOB. Let's say B1 did not touch the ball at all, so A1 is the last one touched the ball, do give the ball to B team for throw in? what if B1 touched the ball and A1's hand in the same time?

#3: when you did not see who's hand realy touched the ball last, do you usually use the direction of the ball and the motion of players hand at that moment to judge the call, if it seems appearent? or you usually give them a jump ball?

Thanks

1. Touching the hair is not the body in my book.

2. A's ball.

3. Yes, I have done that before. Not everytime though. I guess I'd have to see the play.

I guess if you want to be really technical you could I guess. It makes no common sense in any way to do so?

That is a judgment issue. I would not try to complicate the issue.

Again another judgment issue. I would not nit pick every call like this. I really think going to the AP arrow is usually bad if every situation you are trying to figure out whether a nail touches the ball last. Get in position and call what you see. If you are completely screened, then either get into position to make the call next time or ask for help. Do not use the AP arrow just because you "think" someone might have touched the ball. You better be totally clueless as to what happen before you use that method.

Peace

Perhaps not in your book but the rule book does not require "the body" to touch the ball. It requires that the last "player" to touch the ball causes it to go OOB.

A's ball - the hand is part of the ball (4-24-2), so hitting A's hand while it is in contact with the ball is the same as hitting the ball.

It may make sense to give to ball to A1 (if B1 does not touch the ball), but is that the opposite of what the rule says? because after all, A1 is the last one who touched the ball.

Then give the ball to team A, problem solved. :rolleyes:

You really are making this more complicated then it needs to be.

Peace

It seems that both opinions have their merit. I am wondering which one has the majority.

No Peace just yet. which rule should we apply here, "hand is part of the ball" or "last one touched the ball"? the outcome are just the opposite.

Thanks.

Where in R4-24-2 does it say that the hand is part of the ball? :confused:

In my rule book, it says that it's legal for a defender to accidentally hit the opponent's hand while that hand is contacting the ball. There's no mention of the hand actually being part of the ball.

Call what you see. Call what you see. Call what you see. Call what you see.

Basketball is really not that complicated. Call what you see. And if you call what you see, you better be sure that is what you saw. If you spend your time nitpicking every little rule, you are going to paralyze yourself and not call anything. Or at the very least not make the right call very often.

Peace

1. Touching the hair is not the body in my book.

[/B][/QUOTE]How about a shoe or a shirt? They aren't really part of the body either, are they?

How about a shoe or a shirt? They aren't really part of the body either, are they?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Why would a shoe have hair growing on it??

I will try to live with myself.

Why would a shoe have hair growing on it??

[/B][/QUOTE]Aw geeze, now you going all existential on me.

You have not offer your opinions yet. If that are what we saw and are what really happened, then what are your calls

1. B1 hits A1's hand only and the ball goes OOB.
2. ball kisses a player's hair on its way OOB.

Thanks.

ysong:

It is plain and simple use your brain. Base the call on common sense and what the intent of the rule is. The intent of the rule on B1 hitting the player's hand is that B knocked it away from A therefore like I said use common sense and give the ball to A. If you see different then by god step up, be an official and sell your call that it is B's ball.

Geesh

[Edited by refTN on Mar 17th, 2005 at 04:54 PM]

I gave my opinion, call what you see.

I do not consider myself a "rulebook official." In many the circles I run with, that is a slanderous statement. For me that involve someone that is trying to find every little loophole and every little word and paragraph to find some justification for every call. In my opinion that does a disservice to you as an official. I do not have the eyesight that would allow me to see a strand of hair that might possibly touch the ball. I call what I see. I certainly am not going to consistently call something that is not clear to the masses watching. I cannot see myself making a call that I would have to explain in detail or I cannot see on tape. Maybe that is not the answer you are looking for, but if these are major issues for you to officiate games, you are going to have some real problems.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Mar 17th, 2005 at 05:05 PM]

Somebody needs a nap real bad! :o

Thanks, refTN. It may be very obvious to you what the right call is, but it is not for me. "the last to touch it or the last be touched by it" rule happens to be one of the few clearly defined ones, especially "the last be touched by it", which does not leave any room for judgement call at all. I am really curious to know if I am the only odd ball here.

what is your call about the ball OOB off somebody's hair?

Thanks. :)

If I see it touch hair, it is OOB off that player. I do draw the line at it touching the aura, however. ;)

The answer you are looking for
 

Yes, you are the only odd ball here.

You may be. :)

As far as the rule book is concerned, it covers both!

7-1-2
The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds to touch it or be touched by it...

It's very clearly defined.

ysong,

Is this something happening in every game you work?

It sounds like to me you both read something in the rulebook or casebook and started coming up with situations that might happen.

I have been working about 9 years doing this. I have worked varsity ball for 9 of those years to some extent. I have worked the playoffs and college ball for the past 4-5 years. I have never had a single coach ever invoke these rules as a justification or a possibility for either me or my partner's to miss a call. I have never (until now) heard of any official even bring up these issues or even have a debate about what happens if a player's hair touches the ball and it goes out of bounds. I have never heard of anyone debating the issue of the ball being knocked out thru the hand of the ball handler. You sound more like you are trying to create a test for the NF, then trying to learn how to call the game. This insistence on an opinion from everyone here is rather futile and silly. If you cannot figure out what to do, then I really wonder about what might happen when you get on that court. I have no problem with anyone wanting to learn the rules or the game, but success is not in the cards for officials that only try to find loopholes in every rule and get upset when they cannot find a definitive answer. I understand why you asked the question, but at some point you are going to have to decide do you want to call something that no one is going to understand or do you want to call something that everyone can see and understand. I for one am not at all perfect as an official, but it is rare that I make call that are not easily explained or I am the only one that can see something. What you are asking is not going to make yourself a better official. I can guarantee you if you go to a camp or most association meetings, these are not going to be talked about seriously.

Peace

Thanks, JRutledge. you are absolutely right on this.

One note though, when the ball passes through somebody hair, not only you and all the players can see it, but you can also hear the sound, scratchy and clear, if you are the lead.

I would guess you are obligated to call OOB on the player with the hair too, am I right? (No wonder NBA players usually shave their heads.)

Thanks.

Re: The answer you are looking for
 

Thanks Redhouse. I feel flattered.

I realize that this is a slow time since most of the forum posters are finished with their season, but man you have got to bring something a little better than this.

Take what you have received and please please please, move on.

BTW, you must have some awesome hearing.

Redhouse, these are the only stuff I have. If I process anything slightly better, would you think I would stay here to take some of these from some of those?

I ask because I do not know and more so because I really want to know. Making calls is not perfect, but it is not an excuse to be content with ambiguities when they can be clarified. It is ok not being omniscient, but it is not ok to claim omniscient and announce everything that is not seen is either nonexsitent or preposterous.

throw a ball to somebody's hair and hear for yourself. you may be amazed to find out at least your hearing is as good as everybody else.

Don't sweat it, ysong. If it helps you, keep asking. But don't debate when you're get the same answer from most every poster.

There is hope
 

This just might be the most insightful comment I have ever heard you make, Jeff! And grammatically correct with no misspellings!:D

Ysong, if it helps you pay attention to what Tony said,
"7-1-2
The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds to touch it or be touched by it..."

But let me stress the word "CAUSED." Often the person we call the OOB on is the one that caused it to go OOB. Hence the one that slapped the ball is the one that caused it to go OOB. And also this is likely the reason that Juggler said he might not call it OOB on a person whose hair barely touched a ball that was already going OOB.

Hope that helps... but don't ask me again. ;)

Re: There is hope
 

Sorry I cannot return the comments back to you. I am still waiting for that day from you. ;)

Peace

Re: There is hope
 

Are you saying you "often" ignore the ball hitting B1 prior to going OOB and rule A1 "caused" it to go OOB because A1 originally threw it? I can't imagine that's what you mean here, but that's what it sounds like.

Re: Re: There is hope
 

Absolutely not. No. And if you took my post out of the context of the rest of this thread, I suppose you might get that idea.

However, I believe the original question involved a defender hitting someone's hand that is holding the ball. The defender never touched the ball but hit the offensive player's hand and the ball was knocked free and, not touched again, went OOB.

Mark, are you telling me that you would call this OOB off of the offensive player? I doubt it, very seriously. Just a rhetorical question.

I also suggested that the same reasoning might have been used by an earlier poster that said he might ignore a ball that touches the tips of a player's hair and then goes out of bounds. Was that a hair that touched the ball? The sound of a single hair touching a flying ball can be pretty distinctive.

I believe it was you (I didn't go check the previous posts, but I thought it was you) that suggested you would not call it OOB off a player's aura... how about if they breathed on it, or better yet spit on it as it went by? OOB on the spitter. Non-spitter's ball.

What if they cause the ball to go OOB by telekinesis? Who did that?

Facetious from beginning to end... ;)