Like I said before give the ball or call a foul, but don't give the ball to B because you can by definition of the rules. That is what makes us great officials, all truth(rules) don't have to be spoken sometimes is just best to shut up and call the "game"

The Swiss have a saying: When the map and the terrain disagree, trust the terrain. When a very literal interpretation of the rules is at odds with the game, do what's right for the game. That is not to say that we can go out and do whatever we like, but when your head tells you one thing, and your gut tells you another, trust your gut.

Now I know I'm gonna get flamed to bits over this because the rules are the rules. I agree. However, in this case you have a fairly specific exception to the foul rule and we're debating how/if it applies to the oob rule. There's no case on it (as far as I know), no official interpretation (again, as far as I know) and the result of the literal application pits head against gut. And you'll notice that folks have been very careful to distinguish between the debate about the proper rule (the head part) and what they would normally do (the gut part).

I think your roommate is right. When the literal application of the rule only serves to screw the players and display the official's knowledge of the rules, something is wrong. We need officials who understand that. Git 'er signed up! :)

What about the one that says the last player to touch the ball before it goes OOB is the one that has violated? ;)

I can't believe this thread is this big. How many people would really give the ball to B?

So far only one, if I recall correctly. Even those on the semantics police are giving it to A.:D

I don't see the real problem, myself. The only way to read 10-6-1 is the hand is considered part of the ball when playing the ball. Now it takes a little leap to apply that to OOBs plays, but how much of a leap is it really?

If you must justify it by "seeing" B's hand touching the ball, go for it, the result is the same either way.;)

You could easily argue that the lack of a case or official interpretation is in fact a tacit endorsement of the literal interpretation. But we're all pretty much in agreement that the literal interpretation is "wrong." Not wrong by rule, wrong by feel. Which is why pretty much everyone has said they'd give the ball back to A. We only differ in the reasoning we'd apply to support our decision.

A significant minority (namely Jurassic and me!) have said that while we may not like the rule, we're going to give the ball to B, because that's the way we're supposed to do it. We have to enforce all the rules, even the ones we don't like.

Uh, no, Jewel.
Both of you did not say that. ;)
mick

That would be the PRETTY MUCH in "pretty much everyone." ;)

Okay, I give. What did we say?

JR is giving the ball back to A, you are all by your lonesome on this one.:D

Let's go to the videotape........
 

Looks like BZ's gotcha on this one....although you did go on to clarify with this:

Me, I'm giving Juulie the benefit of the doubt here. I can't see her viewing the play and rewarding B1 for hitting A1's hand.

Here's a direct quote from JR

"My position is legitimate(in my mind).....but wrong by rule.

You're right, Juulie; imo the only options by rule are a foul on B1 or a B throw-in. "

Also, I think Camron's on my side, too.

So, that makes three of us, not just one.

Frankly, I can't believe y'all are seriously giving the ball to A. If A is the last one to touch the ball, what else needs to be said? The book clearly states that the definition of "causes the ball to be oob" is "the last to touch." How could you possibly go against that? Since when to we deliberately and with malice aforethought contravene clear legal language to suit our own ideas of "common sense"? Seriously, I don't get it.

If B shoves the ball out of bounds, and A reaches for it, and just barely tips it, then it was really B that caused the ball to go out, even though A was the last to touch. How is that any different from the play under discussion?

Ohhhhhhhhhhkay, I take it all back.

But the play you describe - "B shoves the ball out of bounds, and A reaches for it, and just barely tips it..." is COMPLETELY different than B slapping A's hand, causing the ball to go OOB - and frankly, I can't believe you don't believe the two are different!

I know what you are saying about the direct interpretation of the rule - then again, if you adopt my interpretation of "hand is part of the ball", it's not an issue ;)

Regardless, I defy anyone to identify an evaluator or top official - at any level - who would want us to give the ball to Team B if the play happened as described - B1 SLAPPING A1'S HAND, FORCING THE BALL OOB.

I've got a cold beer (a Canadian one, not that coloured tap water you guys suck back :p) that says you won't find one.

If that play happens, and you give it to B, I think any evaluator is going to at least question you about it - they'll remember it as "the play when Coach A went ballistic". And if you give the explanation you're giving here, I'm thinking they will have MORE questions.

Incidentally, I'm with tomegun - I can't believe this thread is so long !! :D

[Edited by canuckrefguy on Jul 20th, 2005 at 02:00 AM]

This is JR's ruling Juulie:

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.

Like I said, you are alone in giving the ball to B. JR is using the spirit and intent of the rule, Cameron said he's never seen B just hit hand, so he's giving it to A, too.