New Case plays that are important from NFHS.com

[JosephG678]

So, like Kelvin said, we wait to see the outcome of the basket to see if violation stands...Seems a little strange there...

Or, does A get the basket AND the ball back for the violation???

Thanks.
Joe

[tjones1]

One or the other, basket good - nothing, basket not good - violation.

[Ref in PA]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Most of these are common sense and I think many of us would interpret or have interpreted these things the same way.

I have got to tell you though that Situation #10 is a pretty wierd. Ball is in the air for a shot when B run OOB to avoid screens. We blow the whistle, if it scores we ignore it and if it doesnt we give the ball back to A.

My other question, when a kid has to change a shirt due to blood and has to go to the locker room who goes with him since we dont send kids by them selves to the locker room. They may be so dispondent from being taken out of the game for the blood rule that they may go into the locker room and inflcit harm to themselves.

Now when we make a player take their illegal undershirt off they'll get a T because they did it at the bench- Give me a break

I think you misread the interpretation. Here it is again:

SITUATION 10: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3’s try is in flight. RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (9-3-2; 6-7-9 Exception d)

The ruling is to call B3 for the violation and give the ball to A for a throw-in. If it goes, count it. It says nothing about ignoring it if the shot goes in.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, it's a different rule for a throw-in. Rule 9-2-11--which hasn't changed..It's an official warning followed by a T for a re-occurance.

Do you really think that's the intent of the change?

IMO, the "warning, then T" rule is (primarily) for the person guarding the inbounder.

If it's another defensive player chasing a member of Team A other than the inbounder, I think the violation rule applies.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Do you really think that's the intent of the change?

IMO, the "warning, then T" rule is (primarily) for the person guarding the inbounder.

If it's another defensive player chasing a member of Team A other than the inbounder, I think the violation rule applies.

I really dunno to be quite honest. I certainly can see your point and it's a good 'un.

R9-2-11 is very specifically written up in the plural--i.e. "opponent(s)". I read that as covering all defensive players that go OOB during a throw-in, not just a defender contesting a throw-in. Iow, any defender going OOB during a throw-in leads to the team warning procedure instead of an immediate violation.

As for the intent of the new rule, according to the "COMMENTS ON THE RULES REVISIONS" on p.72, it looks like the FED wants to stop players from leaving the court for an unauthorized reason during the course of play. The question seems to be.....does the "course of play" include all live ball situations or just live ball/clock running situations? If the FED had meant it to include all live ball situations, I think that they would have re-written 9-2-11 to reflect that. That's jmo though.

Thoughts?

[tjones1]

I think I'm going back towards my orginal thought.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by tjones1
I think I'm going back towards my orginal thought.

Fwiw, I'm sticking to my original answer.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, it's a different rule for a throw-in. Rule 9-2-11--which hasn't changed..It's an official warning followed by a T for a re-occurance.

That is assuming it happens on the throwin boundary. There are 3 other boundaries across which the defender could go OOB to get around a screen.

[Kelvin green]

Originally posted by Ref in PA

I think you misread the interpretation. Here it is again:

SITUATION 10: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3’s try is in flight. RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (9-3-2; 6-7-9 Exception d)

The ruling is to call B3 for the violation and give the ball to A for a throw-in. If it goes, count it. It says nothing about ignoring it if the shot goes in.

So we count the basket and then give the ball back to A?... I cant believe that's what they would want. Personally-I am not going there...

This makes the violation equal to a foul and pretty much the only violation that would do this... This is like calling BI or GT, scoring the basket, and then giving it back to A. what

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Kelvin green


This makes the violation equal to a foul and pretty much the only violation that would do this... This is like calling BI or GT, scoring the basket, and then giving it back to A. what

I think the "swinging elbows" violation is the same.

I also think it's much ado about nothing. I don't recall passing on many Ts over the years because the offensive player went OOB, and I never remember the defensive player doing it in a manner to get noticed. NCAA has had a similar rule, and there haven't been any controversies (that I am aware of) regarding the defensive player.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
I also think it's much ado about nothing. I don't recall passing on many Ts over the years because the offensive player went OOB, and I never remember the defensive player doing it in a manner to get noticed.

Probably none of us has seen it in the past. But now that it's being talked about, I bet it gets much more common.

[David B]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Probably none of us has seen it in the past. But now that it's being talked about, I bet it gets much more common.

That's what scares me. As Bob said earlier, I haven't seen it in my games or noticed it to be a problem; however, with an emphasis on it, I can see it being called by some of the officials and then me having to explain it the next time I'm at that gym.

On the play in question, what about if a player is forced OOB, does that count the same - should not, but I don't see that covered in the rule. Or did I miss it?

Thanks
David

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by David B
[/B]

On the play in question, what about if a player is forced OOB, does that count the same - should not, but I don't see that covered in the rule. Or did I miss it?

[/B][/QUOTE]If a player is forced out of bounds, you got nuthin'-- unless he delays returning inbounds.

The new rule- R9-3-2- sez that a player can't leave the floor for an "unauthorized" reason. Going OOB because you're forced out isn't an "unauthorized" reason. Ergo, this rule doesn't apply to a force-out.

Similary, R10-3-3 sez it's a T if you delay returning inbounds after legally being OOB. Iow, this rule doesn't apply on a force-out either if the player forced out comes right back in.

[Nevadaref]

There is no force-out rule, not even in the NBA anymore. So if a player is forced out of bounds by an opponent, I think you have to call a foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
There is no force-out rule, not even in the NBA anymore. So if a player is forced out of bounds by an opponent, I think you have to call a foul.

Nevada, not all contact is a foul. You know that. If two players just collide, and one player goes OOB as a result of that collision, then you have a player who is not OOB for an unauthorized reason. The only thing governing that player's action now is the rules requisite that he now must return in-bounds asap. If he does so, then there is no call to be made.