hand's part of the ball

[mick]

Originally posted by reffish
So, ball is heading out of bounds, A1 is able to catch ball and fling it over his head to save the ball. The ball is visibly going out of bounds before B1, who is behind him, reaches out with his hand and his fingers visible touch the ball. With or without the touching by B1, the ball was going to be OOB, due to the action of A1 saving the ball and cousing the ball to go OOB at another location. Whose ball?

reffish,
Your different sitch would be Team A ball for throw-in.
mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Although there is no clarification for 9-3, 7.2.1 Situation works close enough for me.

[/B][/QUOTE]How is 7.2.1 relevant? In that play, B1 bats the ball, not the hand(s). Different situation entirely.

[mick]

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref
I agree with the decisions made.

Let's include one more situation. Defenders almost always disagree when a foul is called on them when a shooter has just released the ball on a try and their hand contacts the shooters hand when the ball is barely released. I always call this a foul. My theory is the follow-through is very important on a shot and that hand-to-hand contact disrupts the shot and therefore should be a foul.

Your thoughts.

Old Dude Ref,
Welcome to the forum.

With the ball released [off the hand], any further follow through of the hand becomes nothing more than *hand jive*, body English and cannot possibly affect the rotation, or flight, of the ball with anything except the increased air circulation of the follow-through, ...assuming there is no magic wand in that particular grip.

mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Old Dude Ref
I agree with the decisions made.

Let's include one more situation. Defenders almost always disagree when a foul is called on them when a shooter has just released the ball on a try and their hand contacts the shooters hand when the ball is barely released. I always call this a foul. My theory is the follow-through is very important on a shot and that hand-to-hand contact disrupts the shot and therefore should be a foul.

Your thoughts.

How could a shot possibly be disrupted by contact that occurred after the shot left the shooter's hands? That's physically impossible. After the shot is gone, you would have to touch the ball to disrupt it's flight. Any contact by the defender that occurs after the shot is gone should be ignored as being incidental unless it happens to place the shooter at some kinda disadvantage or it's rough play. Jmo.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Although there is no clarification for 9-3, 7.2.1 Situation works close enough for me.

[/B]

How is 7.2.1 relevant? In that play, B1 bats the ball, not the hand(s). Different situation entirely.

[/B][/QUOTE]

"Sorry if I kicked another one, Coach.
But, I woulda sworn he hit the ball, ...again."

mick

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick

How is 7.2.1 relevant? In that play, B1 bats the ball, not the hand(s). Different situation entirely.

[/B]

"Sorry if I kicked another one, Coach.
But, I woulda sworn he hit the ball, ...again."

mick [/B][/QUOTE]The best unanswered question yet is still:

How many would call this play by the letter of the rule and give B1 the ball? And how many would give A1 the ball because of B1's contact with their hands forcing the ball to go OOB?

Note that I haven't said either way yet what I'd do.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

"Sorry if I kicked another one, Coach.
But, I woulda sworn he hit the ball, ...again."

mick [/B]

The best unanswered question yet is still:

How many would call this play by the letter of the rule and give B1 the ball? And how many would give A1 the ball because of B1's contact with their hands forcing the ball to go OOB?

Note that I haven't said either way yet what I'd do. [/B][/QUOTE]

A's ball, B's fingers made last contact on the ball between A's spread fingers.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
assuming there is no magic wand in that particular grip.

An important stipulation, considering that the new Harry Potter book is being released tonight at midnight. And yes, I have the responsibility of taking my daughter and her friend to the party at our local bookstore. :shrug:

[canuckrefguy]

Here's a thought....

If the hand is part of the ball, and B1 slaps A1's hand while on the ball, causing the ball to go out of bounds....

Would it not be A's ball - because if B1 touched A1's hand while it was on the ball, it was the same as touching the ball (because the rule says the hand is part of the ball), therefore, technically, B1 was last to touch the ball - so the ball should go to Team A.

Oh, and one more thing....who's on first?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

An important stipulation, considering that the new Harry Potter book is being released tonight at midnight. And yes, I have the responsibility of taking my daughter and her friend to the party at our local bookstore. :shrug:

So, where are the friend's parents? Are they going to be safe at home relaxing with that bottle of wine, while you're fighting the crowds at the bookstore late at night? Why aren't THEY taking both kids? Isn't it their turn? Where's your indignation, Chuck?


Yea, I've gotta take my kids too.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Here's a thought....

If the hand is part of the ball, and B1 slaps A1's hand while on the ball, causing the ball to go out of bounds....

Would it not be A's ball - because if B1 touched A1's hand while it was on the ball, it was the same as touching the ball (because the rule says the hand is part of the ball), therefore, technically, B1 was last to touch the ball - so the ball should go to Team A.

Nope, the rule doesn't say the hand is part of the ball. The rule (R10-6-1) sez "He/she shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball". Iow, if you judge the whack on the hand "incidental contact", then it ain't a foul.

The other relevant rule is R7-2-1, which sez "The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds to touch it, or be touched by it...".

Put 'em together, and the only possible calls, by strict interpretation of the rules (I think) is:
1) Judge the contact on A1's hand by B1 as a foul on B1.
2) Judge the contact on A1's hand by B1 as incidental contact, which means no foul---> but A1 was now the last player to touch the ball in bounds---> so you end up with a B throw-in.

Anybody disagree with that from a strict rules standpoint?

PS- Personally, I'm in favor of giving the ball back to A for a throw-in. I think that this was the original purpose and intent of the rules. B shouldn't benefit or gain an advantage after initiating the physical contact in this case imo.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
Why aren't THEY taking both kids? Isn't it their turn? Where's your indignation, Chuck?

Nah, no indignation. They're both great girls. We'd already made plans to have her sleep over our house tonight. The Potter Party will just be a bonus -- for them.

Yea, I've gotta take my kids too.

Gotta love being a dad, huh? LOL Enjoy your pumpkin juice and chocolate frogs!

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Nah, no indignation. They're both great girls. We'd already made plans to have her sleep over our house tonight. The Potter Party will just be a bonus -- for them.

Gotta love being a dad, huh? LOL Enjoy your pumpkin juice and chocolate frogs!

Have you ever tried those Bertie Botts all flavor beans (or whatever they're called). The ones that have the different flavors like buttered popcorn and cherry, as well as grass, ear wax and vomit. I don't know how they do it, but the flavors are all accurate.

So, anyway, what's this have to do with hands and balls?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
PS- Personally, I'm in favor of giving the ball back to A for a throw-in. I think that this was the original purpose and intent of the rules. B shouldn't benefit or gain an advantage after initiating the physical contact in this case imo.

GASP!!!



You mean there are times you would make a call that is literally opposite what the rule actually states?!? How could you?!?

(BTW - I agree with you.) I know, I know, you're already typing, "But I would do the same for both teams." I just couldn't resist.

[Back In The Saddle]

As for the contact with the shooter's hand after the shot is released, I've got nothing. Fred Flintstone is the only person I've ever seen effect the path of a ball once it's released using further body motion.

As for B1 hittings A1's hand and causing the ball to go OOB, I have to agree with JR that by strict interpretation it would have to be B's ball. But I take the position that the rules committee didn't intend to give B1 free shots at A1's hand, but rather to simplify what would otherwise be a very hair-splitting judgement call by absolving B1 of responsibility for the contact on the hand as long as he is attempting to play the ball. In that case, I think we should proceed as if he did play the ball and give it back to A. The rule may not say that the hand is part of the ball, but I think that's closer to the committee's intent than the strict interpretation.

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Jul 15th, 2005 at 09:10 PM]