Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Yabut......there are "conditions" in R9-3-2. The condition is that to have a violation, the player must go OOB for an unauthorized reason. There are no unuathorized reasons listed anywhere in the rules that I know of. That's why we're asking somebody to cite such a rule if they know one. A player going OOB for an authorized or legal reason just doesn't meet the primary condition of R9-3-2.
[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 19th, 2005 at 05:30 PM]
|
Yabut, I did. Well, ok, not the rules, but the comments on the rules:
Comments on the 2005-06 Rules Revisions, Release Date: 5/10/05, NFHS website.
Ok, they don't carry the same weight as the rules and casebook, but it gives us an idea of what the rules committee is trying to address. And the one play that is addressed, that they say is an unauthorized leaving of the court, is going OOB to avoid or go around a screen. As Chuck asked, does that supercede the right of any member of the throw-in team being able to go OOB? I say probably, you say no. Since it is a POE, I'm assuming the going around a screen OOB is an important no-no. So that's why I'm doing what any good politician would do, and that's to say both are correct. If there's any doubt the player is being a part of the throw-in play, it works for me. If there's no doubt the player is just trying to gain the advantage of going around the screen and not be a part of the throw-in, then that's what the committee is trying to address.
Mon Sep 19, 2005, 05:15pm
Threaded Mode
