NFHS - Lodged ball

[Chess Ref]

Player A throwing the ball in, ball gets lodged between rim/backboard. I get that it is a violation my question is should I use Mechanic #25 since this seems to fall under other violations ?

Player A shoots the ball and ball gets stuck between rim/backboard this would be a Jump Ball and go to AP arrow ? i believe that is correct but looking for some validation.

Thanks for info and feedback. M

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Why is the first one a violation?

2nd one is AP Arrow.

[cdaref]

Getting lodged on a throw in is a violation.

Rule 9-2-8:

"The thrown ball shall not become lodged between the backboard and ring before it touches or is touched by another player."

I am presuming in your case it was not touched before becoming lodged. If it was, that is a different situation.

Presuming it was not touched, then there is a violation per 9-2-8. The penalty per rule is throw in for the other team at the original throw in spot.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes
Why is the first one a violation?

'Cause the rule book says so.

[cdaref]

Regarding getting lodged on a shot, the ball becomes dead per rule 6-7-3:

The ball becomes dead when ... A held ball occurs or the ball lodges between the backboard and the ring or comes to rest on the flange.

Also, per the Alternating Possession rule 6-4-3(d):

Alternating possession throw ins shall be from the out of bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An AP throw in shall result when ... a live ball lodges between the backboard and ring ..., unless a freethrow or throw in follow.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

'Cause the rule book says so.

If that question hadda been on the NFHS Pt. 1 exam, he woulda nailed it though.

Couldn't help myself.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

'Cause the rule book says so.

"Brevity is the. . ." Oh, never mind.

[Nevadaref]

No, I would not use signal #25 for a lodged ball violation. I would, however, use it for the new running OOB for an unauthorized reason violation.

Chuck,
You've disappointed me. You posted in this thread without informing us that a lodged ball which occurs on a pass is no longer an AP situation. So I have to do that for you.

Due to the new rule this year we go POI.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
No, I would not use signal #25 for a lodged ball violation. I would, however, use it for the new running OOB for an unauthorized reason violation.

Chuck,
You've disappointed me. You posted in this thread without informing us that a lodged ball which occurs on a pass is no longer an AP situation. So I have to do that for you.

Due to the new rule this year we go POI.

I'm away from my books, but I thought the POI was only used for double or simultaneous fouls, and not for other AP situations.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

I thought the POI was only used for double or simultaneous fouls, and not for other AP situations.

Boy, Nevada. I was feeling bad that you caught me on that spelling error. But not so much now. LOL.

[jritchie]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
No, I would not use signal #25 for a lodged ball violation. I would, however, use it for the new running OOB for an unauthorized reason violation.

Chuck,
You've disappointed me. You posted in this thread without informing us that a lodged ball which occurs on a pass is no longer an AP situation. So I have to do that for you.

Due to the new rule this year we go POI.

Since when??????

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jritchie

Since when??????

Since never. R6-4-3(d) hasn't changed. It's still an AP.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Boy, Nevada. I was feeling bad that you caught me on that spelling error. But not so much now. LOL.

Ok, the lightbulb in my head is back on now. What I wrote above is definitely wrong. We still use the AP arrow on a pass which lodges between the ring and backboard despite the fact that there is team control in this situation.

That there is team control during this play is what got me screwed up, and since I have to blame someone for messing me up, I'm going to put this on you, Chuck. Here's why.

In this thread: http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...2&pagenumber=1

you wrote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

As long as the "wedgie" is the result of a try. If it's the result of a deflected pass, then there's still team control.

That is, of course, correct. There is team control during passing between teammates, and since the definition being discussed here was 6-4-3e: "The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal or infraction or end of a quarter or extra period is involved." This situation doesn't fall within that rule.

It is now clear to me that all you were pointing out was that this situation is NOT covered by 6-4-3e, however, it IS still covered by 6-4-3d. Thus it still results in an AP throw-in, just for a different reason.

However, at the time I read your post, I took a wild leap and for some crazy reason concluded that since this situation (passed ball lodging) doesn't fall under the purview of 6-4-3e, it must therefore no longer result in an AP throw-in. Obviously wrong!
Additionally, with my neurons firing at top speed, but no one at the helm to guide them, I figured that this must now be covered by the new POI rule since afterall there is team control and we could just give the ball back to that team.

All total garbage. It must be true that life is all downhill after turning 30.

So my sincere apologies to anyone that I confused with my earlier post, and my sincere thanks to Chuck and JR for setting me straight before I stepped onto the court this season and screwed it up.