New Case plays that are important from NFHS.com - Page 3

David B · #31 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 11:38am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

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.

That's what I was thinking also, as much as its tried, there is no way that every situation can be covered by rule.

We just have to have officials that use good judgement.

Thanks for the help
David

RookieDude · #32 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 03:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Kelvin green

Quote:

Originally posted by Ref in PA

Quote:

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, A3s 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

I agree with you Kelvin...if the bucket is good, ignore the violation...I guess we'll find out at our State Meeting next week.

BTW...I wonder if we could just give the delayed violation signal (fist, with outstretched arm) as we do on a FT delayed violation?
This would seem to be a clean mechanic...if we are not to give the ball back to Team A after a made shot.
Thoughts?

BktBallRef · #33 (**permalink**) Mon Oct 17, 2005, 09:35pm

Quote:

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.

There must be reasonable space between two defensive players or a defensive player and a boundary line to allow the dribbler to continue in his/her path. If there is less than 3 feet of space, the dribbler has the greater responsibility for the contact.

Nevadaref · #34 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 19, 2005, 07:30am

Quote:

Originally posted by David B

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

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.

That's what I was thinking also, as much as its tried, there is no way that every situation can be covered by rule.

We just have to have officials that use good judgement.

Thanks for the help
David

I agree with both of you, of course.
It was just that when the term "force-out" was used, I clicked back to the specific meaning that it had for the NBA. Players were getting bumped out of bounds and the officials had a rule that allowed them to simply award the ball back to that team for a throw-in without calling a foul. A few years ago the NBA decided that this was a poor policy and that fouls should be called on such plays. Therefore, the "force-out" rule was dropped.