Hand is part of the ball?
 

B1, in an attempt to play the ball, slaps at A1's hand while A1's hand is on the ball (dribbling or holding the ball).

situation 1: ball goes oob.

situation 2: A1 loses control of the ball and team B picks it up.


In situation 1: I got A's ball oob on B.

in situation 2: I got a no call.

Am I right? Friend of mine made a good point that my interpretation on these 2 situations isn't really consistent-although I still think I am probably right because in situation 1 it would be very difficult for B1 to have contacted all hand without touching a little of the ball.

situation 3: A1 attempts to rebound the ball and gets one hand on it. B1 pushes A1's hand and ball goes oob. It is obvious B1 never touched the ball-only A1's hand. Whose ball?

MISCONCEPTION: The hand is <b>not</b> part of the ball. I've never, ever seen a ball with a hand attached to it.

There is a exception to the rules that sez it's not a foul if you contact an opponent's hand while it is on the ball, as long as that contact is deemed incidental to an attempt to play the ball. Iow, it's a judgement call. If an official feels that a defender <b>deliberately</b> whacked an opponent's hand while it was on the ball, then it <b>is</b> a foul. As most officials aren't mindreaders, the usual call is that the contact <b>was</b> incidental and not deliberate, and therefore no foul was involved.

Just semantics, but I wanted to straighten that one out.

Re #1: Unless I see B contact the ball, I call it oob on A, B's ball. My thinking is that if the defender is skilled enough to get all hand (and unless I see otherwise, that's what they did), then I want to reward that good defense.

There's some gray area here, though. If the defender was AIMING for the hand, is the contact incidental? It is a play on the ball, since it aims to control the ball, but it does it through the dribbler's hand. So where does that fall, Jurassic?

A ball.
B caused ball to go outa bounds.

Seriously, mick?

Yes, Jewel.
If the ball goes cleanly out, without A touching again,
then I saw B cause the ball to go out.
Quick, clean, fair.
mick

Now comes the fun part......:D

Got a rule to back that up, Mick? One that negates R7-2-1?

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.

Ooooh, I just LOVE the smell of freshly-popped corn...

Fact, not fancy.
 

JR,
I *<s>AB</s>use* 7-2-1.
[*] "Coach, if it happened the way you say, then I may have kicked it."
mick

9-3 says "A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds" Isn't that what B1 did? Caused the ball to go out of bounds?

While follow-through is important, its important only in the sense that the shooter releases the ball in the proper motion....and the follow-through is just an indicator of that. After the ball is released, there is no amount of contact on the shooter that will affect the shot. I'll rarely call a mere brushing of the hands after the release....it's simply not part of the play.

:)
Yer a good man, FrankHtown.
Although there is no clarification for 9-3, 7.2.1 Situation works close enough for me.

I think this is not unlike:[*]Rebounder A with good position reaches straight up to grab rebound [hands on the *sides* of the round ball] while rebounder B swats the back of the ball outa bounds. B causes the ball to be outa bounds, although, physically, A may have touched the ball last.

mick

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?

Yabut.....B1 caused the ball to go OOB by knocking it off of A1's hands last, right?

Is that really any different than B1 trying to save a ball and throwing it off of A1's body so that it then goes OOB? Are you gonna give A1 the ball in that sitch too by using the same rationale? Wasn't the ball last touched inbounds by A1 in <b>both</b> of these cases?

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

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 <b>ball</b>, not the <b>hand(s)</b>. Different situation entirely.

Old Dude Ref,
Welcome to the forum.

With the ball released [<I>off the hand</I>], 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

How could a shot possibly be disrupted by contact that occurred </b>after</b> 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.

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

[/B][/QUOTE]

<LI>"Sorry if I kicked another one, Coach.
But, I woulda sworn he hit the ball, ...again."
:)
mick

<LI>"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. :D

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. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

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

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:

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? :confused:

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. :rolleyes:

Nope, the rule <b>doesn't</b> 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.

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! :D

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?

GASP!!!

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dice-man/sanford.jpg

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.

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. :D

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]

While I do agree with some statements, it is clearly a foul on B if he slaps A's hand when it is on the ball. If B does slap A's hand and everyone hears it you would call a foul. So why not call the foul when there is contact and only you hear it, it is still a foul. That is not good defense when A controlls the ball and B gets controll by hitting my hand.

Let's try another analogy.

I'm sure most of you golf. Let's suppose you stopped your swing one foot AFTER you hit your ball. Would you say that wouldn't have an affect on the flight? Belive me I've hit enough shots under a tree to know there's quite a negative affect on my ball when I can only followthru so far. Same thing on a shot. Go in your driveway and try it. Have someone foul you on the hand (or arm) just when the ball's released. You can't tell me it doesn't affect the shot.

Follow-through is very important, and I certainly call fouls on the shooter before the shooter returns to the floor, *BUT*

The golf analogy doesn't work perfectly here. The reason why your golf shot is changed is because you slow down your swing in order to have the club stop 1 foot past the tee. Assuming the shooter doesn't think he/she is going to get fouled, contact after the shot will not affect the shot.

The assumption, however, is one of the reasons why I do call some fouls on the follow-through, though.

What Dexter said.
He knows stuff.
mick

Careful here.
 

alfreedog,
How do you know what I would call? Is that like, "It sounded like a strike" ?
I called a sound <U>one time</U>. The sound was a sharp smack on the ball. ...Egg on my face. :(
mick

Okay, I've been gone all day, and it's probably just as well, since this thread has been much more entertaining and interesting without me!

I call it good defense if B can get the ball away from A and oob without B touching the ball, so that B gets the throw-in. By rule, that's the way the game is played.

I'm also very glad to have no Harry Potter fans in the family. I would not want to stay awake till midnight tonight!! Now if it was Beverly Clearly, I'd stand in line for three days, but I'm afraid those days are over.

Thank you Dexter.

I agree that it doesn't happen often but for some to never call it because it doesn't affect the shot is simply not true. It is definitely a judgement call but it does happen.

The rule does not say that in fact it says the exact opposite. If you are going by sound, you are guessing. There are plenty of times when a defender will clap their hands on a shot attempt. I've seen defenders hit their teammates arm playing a shot, and that makes a slapping sound too. Michael Jordan used to hit his own arm when he turned his body and did a reverse layup.

You ref by sound and you'll be wrong most of the time.

Lah me.

What BZ said!

Did you read R10-6-1, Al? You're completely wrong on the concept used for this one.

Absolutely not. The flight of the ball is set by the contact of the ball with the club head. End of story. Once that contact is over, it's impossible to further affect the flight of the ball in any way, shape or form, no matter what you do, as long as you don't touch the ball again.

The physics you describe are correct. The real question is whether you can plan to stop your swing one foot after the contact, without changing the contact. Probably not, as I'm sure you would agree.

But that's not a good comparison to the contact after the shot in basketball. The shooter should plan on following through, and then take whatever hit comes afterward. The defender should hope to influence the shooter to alter her shot to avoid the effect of the blocking. This is not, in itself, illegal.

If there's slight contact after the ball is gone, it's usually incidental, as long as the defender is maintaining legal hand and arm position. However, it doesn't matter how slight the contact is, a foul is committed, if the defender's hands aren't in a legal position. There may still be good reasons not to call it, but it's much more justifiable a call than the slight contact after the ball's gone with the hands completely legal.

Once the ball is gone it's simple, does the contact hinder the shooter's landing or ability to rebound? Don't make it that complicated.

I took my daughter to Border's last night for the Harry Potter thing. It was kind of fun. I got some writing done, my daughter had a lot of fun, and I had no idea there were so many hot women working in book stores. I need to buy more books!

As to it being good defense, if you are saying it's "good defense" for B to knock the ball away from A by hitting A's hand while it's on the ball, we have very different definitions of good defense. How can you call B hitting A intentionally good defense? Do you see coaches teaching their kids this? "Okay guys, listen up. Today we're going to drill hitting the opponents hand while it's on the ball to deflect the ball out of bounds." I just don't see it. At most a kid might get lucky to have it work out. It is certainly a high risk, low percentage gamble.

You'll also have a devil of a time convincing me that the intent of that little exception in the rule is to allow B to take cheap shots at A's hand. Or that they intended that if B hit A's hand and thus knocked the ball oob that they intended for B to have the ball. The contact is "incidental to an attempt to play the ball" and should be treated as such. Ignore the incidental contact and make your call based on B playing the ball.

I'm not talking about hitting. I guess I'm not making myself clear. I'm talking about the play where B tries to tap? bump? guide? the ball away from A, and in the process B provides the force for the ball to go oob, but does it without ever touching the ball. It's a play on the ball, and the contact is incidental to the play, and A is the last one to touch, so B gets the ball for a throw-in. What's not to like?

It's kinda hard imo to say the contact was "incidental" when B ended up gaining a definite advantage from the contact.

Incidental contact is something that doesn't affect a play. I don't think you can say that about B's contact in this particular play. The contact made A lose possession of the ball.

That's what I don't like and that's why I wouldn't give B the ball for a throw-in.

But by rule, is your position legitimate? If you think the contact wasn't incidental, you should call a foul, right?

Jeeze, I thought I clarified that way back......:D

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. Just my own observation, but I think that most of the time though A gets the ball back through the idea conveyed before by somebody--the principle that B1 actually caused the ball to go OOB.

Now, how does everyone else call this play in real life?

A's ball, mainly because it's within the spirt of the rules and frankly just good old common sense.

You are penalizing who actually caused the ball to go OOBs, even if technically they were not the last to actually touch the ball, and you are not penalizing them more harshly with a foul.

Incidental contact is contact that would, by the letter of the rule, be a foul but is deemed no so because it had no effect.

The hand/ball situation, by the letter of the rule, is not incidental contact, it's simply not an infraction of the rules in any way.

The fact that B might gain an advantage in this situation involving contact is not relevant either. The contact involved is clearly specified as legal contact. Therefore, and advantage gained by B is intended by the rules.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jul 17th, 2005 at 03:10 AM]

So.....after wading through all that, I take it that personally you're giving B a throw-in?

A foul on B1 is not a rule option. The rule quite clearly says this is not a foul if the contact was on only the hand and the target of was the target rather than the hand.

If B1 does not contact the ball in the process, the only valid rule option is OOB on A1. By definition, A1 caused the ball to go out. The defintion is that the ball is caused to go OOB by the last person to contact or be contacted by the ball before it goes OOB...it is not caused to go out by the person who provided the impetus for the ball going out.

Consider B1 batting a ball towards the OOB line where, just before it is OOB, it is touched ever so slightly by A1. Are you suggecting that A should get the ball since it would have gone out anyway? (I don't think so).

Now in practice, I don't recall seeing a time when B1 really contacted only the hand. There is practially always contact on both the ball and the hand...with B1 often having the final contact. Given that, the possibility of calling it OOB on B1 and returning the ball to A is a valid possibilty...and will most alway be my call. However, I have seen situations where A1 clearly was in contact with the ball slightly after B1 hits it...A1 trying to maintain control of the ball, even if only briefly.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jul 17th, 2005 at 03:12 AM]

Ok, I didnt read everyones reply.. for the sole reason that I wanted to give my opinion first without " cheating ". I did read a couple of the first ones, which did not contain any rules postings....

#1 - If the hand is part of the ball, which it is if the defender is attempting to make a play on the ball, and the ball goes out of bounds, then you must give the ball to Team A. The hand is part of the ball, and the ball was knocked out of bounds by Team B's player.

Re: one answer to #1 - as we are NOT mind readers, I would believe that the situation would be reversed, and as officials..we would have to assume that the defender WAS making a play on the ball.....if you are going to assume, then my opinion would be not to assume there is a foul commited. I can gladly tell you that I have missed a few obvious calls in my short career, and when my explanation to the irrate coach includes my choice of poor position during the play...along with the fact that I will not guess on a call NO MATTER WHAT....I slowly earn their respect ( only after that particular game, of course )

#2 - No call.. hand part of ball, even though contact may have caused loss of control.

Just my opinion, and not meant to demean anyone or their opinions. New officials, learn to value the opinions of other officials to broaden your mind about possible situations!

Savaahn

Where may I find the rule that states the hand is part of the ball?

Please broaden my mind.

Wow...what a thread.
1) I'm surprised at those of you who are going to give B the ball for a throw-in, ;)

2) No, the hand is not part of the ball...buuuutttt..the rule exception essentially lets us treat it as such WHEN the defender is making a legitimate play on the ball. That rule rewards the defense, great. Now if I make a play on the ball and incidentally hit the hand, which is actually the ball, and the ball goes out of bounds, I have caused the ball to go out of bounds, period. A's ball for the ensuing throw-in.

The rule never says the hand is part of the ball or anything like it. It says it's not a foul to hit the hand when it is in contact with the ball. That rule is ONLY relevant to the determination of a foul. It has absolutely no part in determining who what the last to touch the ball before it went OOB.

A-Men!!!!

Just because it does not use those exact words, what the heck else does contact on the hand, while on the ball mean other than the hand is considered part of the ball while playing the ball?

A coach asks, "Didn't my player get hit?"

What are you going to answer with?

"Contact that is incidental to playing the ball that contacts the hand while it's on the ball, by rule, is not a foul coach."

Or

"The hand's part of the ball coach."

Same thing, #2, like it or not, is what #1 is saying.

Agreed...in the context of a foul...not for OOB.

Camron, so you are saying that A1 is dribbling and B1 slaps and gets hand/ball or all hand and the ball goes out of bounds it is B's ball for the ensuing throw-in?

And I agree that it is not repeated in 7-2, but by logic or common sense...or whatever term you and JR want to use...most officials will give that ball back to A when it goes directly OOB because of the contact.

Whether you want to justify it by carrying over 10-6-1 or by just using the old, B got some ball too, the results are the same.

Sometimes common sense and the spirit and intent within the rules are needed and this play fits that need.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Sometimes common sense and the spirit and intent within the rules are needed and this play fits that need.

AMEN!

No. Hand & Ball and I'm giving it to A. Hand only (which I don't recall ever actually happening) and I'm giving it to B.

If hitting the dribbler's hand causes the ball to go out of bounds, then it is not incidental contact, and therefore a foul.

However, I'm not going to call a foul. As far as I'm concerned, I saw B hit it OOB, and I'm awarding the ball to A. I suspect that in practice, most of you are going to call it that way as well.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

BTW, can we add "The hand is part of the ball" to the list of rules myths?

Wrong.

The rule says incidental to playing the ball, not incidental contact. What happens to the ball has nothing to do with it being a foul or not. We are to judge whether or not the defender was playing the ball and frankly short of the defender saying I'm intentially going to hit that hand, it would be highly unlikely it could ever be ruled a foul.

It's not a myth, what else does 10-6-1 say if it is not, the hand is considered part of the ball while playing the ball?

So I ask, AGAIN....

If this is so, should we not award the ball back to Team A - because the hand is part of the ball, and therefore contacting the hand while on the ball is the same has hitting only the ball?

Unfortunately, it says that only under 10-6-1 talking about contact that is or is not a foul and not under 7-2-1. Common sense tells me that it could easily be applied to OOB plays as well, but the rules, as written, don't back that up.

What most officials are saying, and then calling, is that it is not likely that B would hit all hand without touching some ball.

In other words, that on this play B hit some ball by definition. Sort of like Miss Manners saying that all babies and all brides are beautiful by definition.

LOL.. you know what is interesting?

My female roommate, who I am trying to get to start officiating, made this comment as we were sitting here looking over this and many other posts.

" Why does it seem like some of those guys are just looking for ways to screw the players and show how smart they are for knowing the exact rule? "

I attempted to explain the " spirit of the rule " theory....

" So is it by the book... or " spirit "? How the **** am I supposed to know? "

ahhhh, the joys of officiating! :)

CANUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

great great joke!!!! ( generals were due )

I would like to think that if B did not touch any of the ball, A should still keep possession - and that most if not all coaches would not have a problem with it (though it's foolish to assume what coaches won't complain about).

If a coach were to complain, I would blow my whistle, and immediately change my call to a foul on B1 :D

AWSOME!

I thought I was the only one who has done that ;)

If I should have had a foul... but dont right away, and you wanna complain... then I will agree... I should make the correct call.

Thanks for your help coach!!!!

:) Having fun with the situation at the moment.

The Generals have to win sometime.. dont they?

Or breathtaking if you are a Seinfeld fan.:D

Which I"m not.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....:p

Too bad, that came from one of their funniest shows.

They were in the Hamptons and George had a shrinkage problem and Elaine was called breathtaking by an attractive doctor, unfortunately he called an ugly baby breathtaking too.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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 :)

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.