Rules Myths

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Methinks your IAABO board might be misunderstanding a few rules too.

You just never know how things are going to go over in Central Connecticut.

Welcome aboard, though, Billy. Soon-to-be Board 8 here.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

(2) Say what? Where may I find that in the NFHS rule book or case book? I thought it was only legal if the fouled player did so to avoid injury-PERIOD. Just being fouled doesn't give any player license to hang on the rim, does it?

(10) Rules citation, please, to back up that statement.

(13) Can the inbounding player legally step in bounds through the plane then?

(14) Rules citation, please, to back that statement up.

(16) Rules citation, please, to back that statement up. I was always under the impression that it WAS a foul if the defender DELIBERATELY slapped a player's hand while it was on the ball.

(24) Rules citation,please, to back that statement up. That may be how it is taught, but I've never seen that language in a rule book.

Methinks your IAABO board might be misunderstanding a few rules too.

#2, #10, #16, #24...agree with you JR

#13...disagree...plane restriction...thrower may lean/reach through the plane. It's not talking about touching.

#14...(semantics)...if the player doesn't return inbound somewhere near where they went out, that implies they didn't immediately/directly return....they ran along the baseline/sideline when they could have returned.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

You just never know how things are going to go over in Central Connecticut.

Welcome aboard, though, Billy. Soon-to-be Board 8 here.

Isn't central CT the part that isn't covered by casinos?

[Rizzo21]

As a new official, I was wanting to ask someone about #7, a blocked shot that stayed in the shooters hand as he returned to the floor. I'm glad you cleared this up (jump ball!).

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Isn't central CT the part that isn't covered by casinos?

Nope - that's Eastern CT, i.e. my neck of the woods.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Nope - that's Eastern CT, i.e. my neck of the woods.

Hmmm...let me break it down a bit:

Is central CT the part of CT that is not covered by casinos?

Check 1:

_Yes, central CT is not covered with casinos

_No, in fact central CT is just littered with the damn things like the rest of the state.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

#13...disagree...plane restriction...thrower may lean/reach through the plane. It's not talking about touching.

#14...(semantics)...if the player doesn't return inbound somewhere near where they went out, that implies they didn't immediately/directly return....they ran along the baseline/sideline when they could have returned.

I see you point on #13, Camron. Re: #14-- If a player went OOB almost parallel to a line, then the rule just states that they then can't delay returning back in-bounds. If their momentum took them several yards along the line, they aren't required to re-trace their steps to approximately the same spot where they went OOB. They simply just come back in where they end up. If they hadda re-traced their steps, then they woulda been delaying their return in-bounds. That was my point. The statement "that player must re-enter at approximately the same spot he or she went out" is stating a requirement that isn't a part of the rule.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Is central CT the part of CT that is not covered by casinos?

Check 1:

_X_ Yes, central CT is not covered with casinos

_No, in fact central CT is just littered with the damn things like the rest of the state.

And we don't need no education.

Only 2 casinos in Connecticut - both just a few miles from each other, and both within a 40 minute drive of me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I see you point on #13, Camron. Re: #14-- If a player went OOB almost parallel to a line, then the rule just states that they then can't delay returning back in-bounds. If their momentum took them several yards along the line, they aren't required to re-trace their steps to approximately the same spot where they went OOB. They simply just come back in where they end up. If they hadda re-traced their steps, then they woulda been delaying their return in-bounds. That was my point. The statement "that player must re-enter at approximately the same spot he or she went out" is stating a requirement that isn't a part of the rule.

Agree...they don't have to retrace their steps. Howver, once they gain control of their motion, the need to head back in, not take another 5 steps parallel to the OOB line then turn back in. That's what I meant by "semantics": approximately/near is open to interpretation enough to account for that. Unless they have the speed of an olympic sprinter combined with the weight of a sumo wrestler, most anyone can come to a full stop, or at least turn back towards the court, in 2-4 yards.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Agree...they don't have to retrace their steps. Howver, once they gain control of their motion, the need to head back in, not take another 5 steps parallel to the OOB line then turn back in. That's what I meant by "semantics": approximately/near is open to interpretation enough to account for that. Unless they have the speed of an olympic sprinter combined with the weight of a sumo wrestler, most anyone can come to a full stop, or at least turn back towards the court, in 2-4 yards.

We agree on the application- fer sure. The problem with the semantics used though was that it could be interpreted different ways imo. That includes the wrong way. It would be much easier just to use the wording of the actual rule and just say something like "must immediately return in bounds" instead of trying to say they have to re-enter at any specific spot. That takes away any doubt about the original purpose and intent of the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


(2) Say what? Where may I find that in the NFHS rule book or case book? I thought it was only legal if the fouled player did so to avoid injury-PERIOD. Just being fouled doesn't give any player license to hang on the rim, does it?

This might not apply to the NF, but NCAA Men's does not want a T called on a player that was fouled in the act of shooting while trying to dunk. This was on the NCAA Men's tape last year. I think that philosophy could be appropriately applied when working NF games without a specific interpretation.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

This might not apply to the NF, but NCAA Men's does not want a T called on a player that was fouled in the act of shooting while trying to dunk. This was on the NCAA Men's tape last year. I think that philosophy could be appropriately applied when working NF games without a specific interpretation.

Peace

I don't recall anyone saying *not* to call a T on a fouled dunker on that tape. In fact I can't remember a single play where a dunker was fouled and you know who saying "no need to T here, he was fouled".

I do recall seeing lots of dunks, each followed by instructions to T him up.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by JRutledge

This might not apply to the NF, but NCAA Men's does not want a T called on a player that was fouled in the act of shooting while trying to dunk. This was on the NCAA Men's tape last year. I think that philosophy could be appropriately applied when working NF games without a specific interpretation.

Peace

I tend to think that, if fouled during a dunk, in 99% of cases, there is an issue of safety if the shooter isn't allowed to grab the rim.

By rule, however, I'm sure there's a 1-in-100 situation where the shooter doesn't really have any need to do so. In a dunk, though (not that I've seen a whole bunch in my career), I think I'm leaning towards the safety exception unless he's hanging there for a long time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

I tend to think that, if fouled during a dunk, in 99% of cases, there is an issue of safety if the shooter isn't allowed to grab the rim.

By rule, however, I'm sure there's a 1-in-100 situation where the shooter doesn't really have any need to do so. In a dunk, though (not that I've seen a whole bunch in my career), I think I'm leaning towards the safety exception unless he's hanging there for a long time.

Whatinthehell are all you people talking about?

BillyMac didn't say a damn thing about a dunk in his original statement. He said it is illegal to hang on the rim if a player was fouled. PERIOD!! That's an all-inclusive statement, folks. It covers all of the possible different scenarios, not just a dunk. For instance, it covers the case of a defender whacking the shooter as soon as he picked the ball up for a lay-up, with the shooter then continuing his normal motion, laying the ball off the board, and then following through and grabbing the ring and hanging from it. It could also cover a player going up for a tip, being fouled without ever touching the ball, and then grabbing the ring despite never having been put off-balance by the foul and also having nobody underneath him. According to Billy's original verbiage, it's legal to hang from the rim in that case too. Um, don't think so.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Whatinthehell are all you people talking about?

BillyMac didn't say a damn thing about a dunk in his original statement. He said it is illegal to hang on the rim if a player was fouled. PERIOD!! That's an all-inclusive statement, folks. It covers all of the possible different scenarios, not just a dunk. For instance, it covers the case of a defender whacking the shooter as soon as he picked the ball up for a lay-up, with the shooter then continuing his normal motion, laying the ball off the board, and then following through and grabbing the ring and hanging from it. It could also cover a player going up for a tip, being fouled without ever touching the ball, and then grabbing the ring despite never having been put off-balance by the foul and also having nobody underneath him. According to Billy's original verbiage, it's legal to hang from the rim in that case too. Um, don't think so.

Before I tell you to shut up, let me ask 1 question:

this includes dunks too, right?

TIA.