The Official Forum - hand's part of the ball

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - hand's part of the ball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/21302-hands-part-ball.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by mick

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
...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

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

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?

This is JR's ruling Juulie:

<font color = red>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</font>.

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.

Yup, that's what JR said and meant--way back.

Okay, well I've misinterpreted JR then. Wow.

I don't mind being the only one who's correct when everyone else is two coaches, 15 players, and a gym full of fans. However, when everyone else is a discussion board full of experienced, authortative, and mostly intelligent referees, I gotta stop and take stock. Hmmm.....

Give me a day to think about this. I gotta figure out what's next for this ol' girl.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
Okay, well I've misinterpreted JR then. Wow.

I don't mind being the only one who's correct when everyone else is two coaches, 15 players, and a gym full of fans. However, when everyone else is a discussion board full of experienced, authortative, and mostly intelligent referees, I gotta stop and take stock. Hmmm.....

Give me a day to think about this. I gotta figure out what's next for this ol' girl.

I e-mailed our state interpreter and here are his exact words:

Ball out of bounds to Team A. When B1 hit the hand below the wrist, it is the same as hitting the ball, as the hand is part of the ball, thus B1 caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. An official would be in "hot water" if they ruled the opposite and my advise is never make a call you cannot explain.

So I guess I was wrong. Sheez, I feel like a dork. It explains a lot of yelling and complaining that I never understand. And it's one more thing to put on the list of poorly written rules.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
So I guess I was wrong. Sheez, I feel like a dork.

Hey, don't feel too bad; some of us have that feeling on a regular basis. ;)

I'm guessing some people might comment on your interpreter's statement on "the hand being part of the ball", but his reasoning is still in line with most people here. Whether you split the hair on the hand being part of the ball (which it really isn't; it just applies to whether a foul can be called), or you "see" that B touched some part of the ball as well as the hand, most of us agree it makes "game sense" to give it back to A.

As far as all the yelling you hear - it doesn't go away just because you're right. :)

Quote:

Originally posted by M&M Guy
As far as all the yelling you hear - it doesn't go away just because you're right. :)

Good call, M&M Guy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by M&M Guy

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
As far as all the yelling you hear - it doesn't go away just because you're right. :)

A little of it might!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by M&M Guy

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
As far as all the yelling you hear - it doesn't go away just because you're right. :)

A little of it might!

Hope springs eternal :)

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Ball out of bounds to Team A. When B1 hit the hand below the wrist, it is the same as hitting the ball, as the hand is part of the ball, thus B1 caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. An official would be in "hot water" if they ruled the opposite and my advise is never make a call you cannot explain.

I agree with the interpretation but sheesh - a state interpreter saying "the hand is part of the ball" with NO qualification whatsoever? :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Ball out of bounds to Team A. When B1 hit the hand below the wrist, it is the same as hitting the ball, as the hand is part of the ball, thus B1 caused the ball to go out-of-bounds. An official would be in "hot water" if they ruled the opposite and my advise is never make a call you cannot explain.

I agree with the interpretation but sheesh - a state interpreter saying "the hand is part of the ball" with NO qualification whatsoever? :rolleyes:

The world is run by a C-minus average.

I'm going to start by admitting I haven't read all 7 pages of this thread but... I look at this situation as a place to use advantage/disadvantage. If the offensive player is not protecting the ball and leaving it out where the defensive player can get to it, I'm not going to bail the offensive player out and call a foul if the defender gets some skin on the pick. That being said, if the slap is loud and everyone hears it, you better call it or you will be in for a long night. As far as A hitting B's hand and knocking the ball out of bounds, I say give it to B as long as it's not so obvious that it will get you in trouble. I have no rules book quotations behind this, just some common sense developed from my games and having others watch me work.

Quote:

Originally posted by Junker
I'm going to start by admitting I haven't read all 7 pages of this thread but... I look at this situation as a place to use advantage/disadvantage. If the offensive player is not protecting the ball and leaving it out where the defensive player can get to it, I'm not going to bail the offensive player out and call a foul if the defender gets some skin on the pick. That being said, if the slap is loud and everyone hears it, you better call it or you will be in for a long night. As far as A hitting B's hand and knocking the ball out of bounds, I say give it to B as long as it's not so obvious that it will get you in trouble. I have no rules book quotations behind this, just some common sense developed from my games and having others watch me work.

The rules say hitting the hand that is on the ball while playing the ball is not a foul. Strike one Junker.

Refereeing by sound will get you in trouble. Strike two.

Most officials in this thread have agreed that common sense means giving the ball back to A on a contact and the ball going directly OOB. Strike three.

Sorry Junker, but you're out.:D

Quote:

There is absolutely no justification for calling a foul just because it is loud and everyone hears it. I've actually had a broken finger from such a play (finger was bent 90 degrees in a way that it wasn't intended...ouch) and it was most certainly NOT a foul.

By calling this a foul, you make it harder for the rest of the officials that have the guts to call it right.

Don't make a call because it is what the crowd/coach expects when it is the wrong call.

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Most officials in this thread have agreed that common sense means giving the ball back to A on a contact and the ball going directly OOB. Strike three.

He switched up A and B on us. He's actually agreeing with us, just doing it backwards. Foul tip; he's still battling. :D

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Most officials in this thread have agreed that common sense means giving the ball back to A on a contact and the ball going directly OOB. Strike three.

He switched up A and B on us. He's actually agreeing with us, just doing it backwards. Foul tip; he's still battling. :D

Nope, still strike three since A is always the offensive player, switching them means he's out.:D