Running the Baseline - Extended??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
JR, you're having way too much fun with this.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I think that you have to view "outside" and behind " as synonymous(good word, Nevada) in this case.

I agree, b/c technically everything that's OOB is outside the endline.

[Corndog89]

The leadership in my association preaches the philosophy of protect the ball, protect the shooter, talk players out of off-ball stuff, and CALL THE OBVIOUS. If you have to think about what you're calling and how you're going to explain it to the coach, then don't call it! Therefore, I'm in the camp of don't call this play a violation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Corndog89
The leadership in my association preaches the philosophy of protect the ball, protect the shooter, talk players out of off-ball stuff, and CALL THE OBVIOUS. If you have to think about what you're calling and how you're going to explain it to the coach, then don't call it! Therefore, I'm in the camp of don't call this play a violation.

Corndog:

Go back and re-read JR's first post. A very similar play was discussed in this Forum a year or two ago. In that case A1 was passing to A2 who was also out of bounds during a throw-in following a score by Team B. A1's pass missed A2 completely and went beyond the sideline extended. I took the position that this was a throw-in violation once the ball went beyond the sideline extended for the reasons that JR made in his first post.

MTD, Sr.

[Corndog89]

MTD

I understand the logic of why this situation could be a violation, but I also understand why it wouldn't be a violation. The rules are not specific. There has been a page and a half of lawyer-like examination and extrapolation of individual words used in various rules references by several very experienced and intelligent officials. If Pres Clinton couldn't be sure what "it" means, how can we assume and be sure of what the rules-writers mean if they're not specific? JR's first and subsequent posts are indeed very persuasive and logical, and I certainly respect his interpretation...I'm just not completely sold.

As Snaqwells pointed out, if this much mental gymnastics is required--and this in a forum where we all have the advantage of time, hindsight, rules books to study and reference at our leisure, experience to call on, previous threads to address, etc, and we still can't reach agreement--then I can't see how I could call this a violation. I don't know what the answer is, but when I'm on the court and this happens, I'm not calling a violation and then have to play Perry Mason to defend my call to the offended coach, especially on a call that I'm not so sure of. On the other hand, if the other coach asks me why I didn't call a violation, I simply respond that he was still out of bounds and had not moved up the sideline. Besides, my guess is that the vast majority of coaches would never even realize that something "funny" had just happened.

Then of course, I may just chicken out and call a 5-second violation

Having said all this, I'm going to bring this one up with my assoc leadership and see what they say. This is one of the reasons I read the forum almost every day...it makes you think about strange situations and how to handle them.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Corndog89
MTD

I understand the logic of why this situation could be a violation, but I also understand why it wouldn't be a violation. The rules are not specific. There has been a page and a half of lawyer-like examination and extrapolation of individual words used in various rules references by several very experienced and intelligent officials. If Pres Clinton couldn't be sure what "it" means, how can we assume and be sure of what the rules-writers mean if they're not specific? JR's first and subsequent posts are indeed very persuasive and logical, and I certainly respect his interpretation...I'm just not completely sold.

As Snaqwells pointed out, if this much mental gymnastics is required--and this in a forum where we all have the advantage of time, hindsight, rules books to study and reference at our leisure, experience to call on, previous threads to address, etc, and we still can't reach agreement--then I can't see how I could call this a violation. I don't know what the answer is, but when I'm on the court and this happens, I'm not calling a violation and then have to play Perry Mason to defend my call to the offended coach, especially on a call that I'm not so sure of. On the other hand, if the other coach asks me why I didn't call a violation, I simply respond that he was still out of bounds and had not moved up the sideline. Besides, my guess is that the vast majority of coaches would never even realize that something "funny" had just happened.

Then of course, I may just chicken out and call a 5-second violation

Having said all this, I'm going to bring this one up with my assoc leadership and see what they say. This is one of the reasons I read the forum almost every day...it makes you think about strange situations and how to handle them.

Corndog:

Sure the rules are specific. Just ask yourself the following question: What constitutes a legal throw-in? The answer is: The thrower must pass the ball such that it crosses the plane of the boundary line and touches a player on the court that is touching either inbounds or out-of-bounds. If A1 inbounds pass does not cross the plane of the boundary line so that it touches a player on the court that is touching either inbounds or out-of-bounds, A1 has committed a throw-in violation.

Lets go even further: A1 has the ball for a throw-in on the endline to his right of Team B's basket after a score by Team B. A2 is standing inbounds in the corner of Team A's backcourt that is to the left of Team B's basket. A1 passes the ball to A2 but the ball never crosses the vertical plane of the endline and touches out-of-bounds past the sideline extended. Has A1 committed a throw-in violation? Of course he has.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 13th, 2006 at 02:02 AM]

[Adam]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Sure the rules are specific. Just ask yourself the following question: What constitutes a legal throw-in? The answer is: The thrower must pass the ball such that it crosses the plane of the boundary line and touches a player on the court that is touching either inbounds or out-of-bounds. If A1 inbounds pass does not cross the plane of the boundary line so that it touches a player on the court that is touching either inbounds or out-of-bounds, A1 has committed a throw-in violation.

Lets go even further: A1 has the ball for a throw-in on the endline to his right of Team B's basket after a score by Team B. A2 is standing inbounds in the corner of Team A's backcourt that is to the left of Team B's basket. A1 passes the ball to A2 but the ball never crosses the vertical plane of the endline and touches out-of-bounds past the sideline extended. Has A1 committed a throw-in violation? Of course he has.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 13th, 2006 at 02:02 AM]

Mark,
Two questions. Are you saying it's a violation as soon as the ball crosses the extended sidelines? If this is the case, then you would never wait until the throwin is made, because the violation occurs before the offense can even retrieve the ball.

The second question is more of a scenario. A1 has the ball for an end-line throwin. He throws the ball down the endline, in the air, where A2 (standing in bounds) reaches across the endline and catches the ball. Is this a throwin violation?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Mark,
Two questions. Are you saying it's a violation as soon as the ball crosses the extended sidelines? If this is the case, then you would never wait until the throwin is made, because the violation occurs before the offense can even retrieve the ball.

The second question is more of a scenario. A1 has the ball for an end-line throwin. He throws the ball down the endline, in the air, where A2 (standing in bounds) reaches across the endline and catches the ball. Is this a throwin violation?

In response to your first question: The endline ends where in intersects the sideline and the sideline ends where it intersects the endline. That means when the ball hits out-of-bounds the throw-in violation occurs.

In response to your second question: Yes. See NFHS R9-S2-A3 (except in NFHS R7-S5-A7). I don't have my NCAA rules book in front of me for its rules references, but the violations are the same.

And now it is time for the old geezer to go to bed. Nite all.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

[i]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Mark,
Are you saying it's a violation as soon as the ball crosses the extended sidelines? If this is the case, then you would never wait until the throwin is made, because the violation occurs before the offense can even retrieve the ball.

[/B]

The endline ends where in intersects the sideline and the sideline ends where it intersects the endline. That means when the ball hits out-of-bounds the throw-in violation occurs.

[/B][/QUOTE]Rules citation that it really is a violation at that time- i.e. definitive language?

[Corndog89]

MTD

I understand and agree with what you're saying about an inbounds pass to a player inbounds, as in the example you gave.

But in the original post, after a made basket A1 threw a legal pass to teammate A2 who was legally OOB as in 7-5-7 (therefore, not an inbounds pass), but A2 fumbled the ball which remained OOB beyond the endline as it passed the sideline extended. There was never an attempt by A1 to throw the ball inbounds. The actual inbounds pass was made by A2 after retrieving the ball and before 5 seconds elapsed. And when A2 threw the ball inbounds, it did cross the plane of the boundary line so that it touched a player on the court who was touching inbounds, constituting a legal throw in by definition (7-6-1).

Except for the endline restriction problem.

The key consideration in this whole dilemma is the status of the OOB area beyond the sidelines and endlines extended. If the endline stops at the sideline and the sideline stops at the endline(?), then the OOB areas extending outward from the corners of the court must be in the twilight zone. But does it really matter?

The more I think about this the more I'm coming over to the dark side. JR (as I recall) noted the clear limits of the endline (ideally 50 ft, from sideline to sideline) on both the court diagram and in para 5 of the "Supplement to Court Diagram". 7-5-7 says a "player...may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundary line". If the end line goes only from sideline to sideline, then logically that boundary outside the end line must also. Therefore, the ball fumbled beyond the sideline extended would constitute a violation as in the example you provided, MTD, negating the "legal" throw in by A2.

Yes, I know, it's been right in front of me the whole time...I'm just a little (a lot??) slow.

I'm still not looking forward to explaining this to a dumbfounded coach now that it inevitably will happen to me, but at least I think I can now. Thanks for everyone's explanations, references, and patience as I hashed this out in the lump 3 feet above my a$$.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Corndog89
MTD

I understand and agree with what you're saying about an inbounds pass to a player inbounds, as in the example you gave.

But in the original post, after a made basket A1 threw a legal pass to teammate A2 who was legally OOB as in 7-5-7 (therefore, not an inbounds pass), but A2 fumbled the ball which remained OOB beyond the endline as it passed the sideline extended. There was never an attempt by A1 to throw the ball inbounds. The actual inbounds pass was made by A2 after retrieving the ball and before 5 seconds elapsed. And when A2 threw the ball inbounds, it did cross the plane of the boundary line so that it touched a player on the court who was touching inbounds, constituting a legal throw in by definition (7-6-1).

Except for the endline restriction problem.

The key consideration in this whole dilemma is the status of the OOB area beyond the sidelines and endlines extended. If the endline stops at the sideline and the sideline stops at the endline(?), then the OOB areas extending outward from the corners of the court must be in the twilight zone. But does it really matter?

The more I think about this the more I'm coming over to the dark side. JR (as I recall) noted the clear limits of the endline (ideally 50 ft, from sideline to sideline) on both the court diagram and in para 5 of the "Supplement to Court Diagram". 7-5-7 says a "player...may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundary line". If the end line goes only from sideline to sideline, then logically that boundary outside the end line must also. Therefore, the ball fumbled beyond the sideline extended would constitute a violation as in the example you provided, MTD, negating the "legal" throw in by A2.

Yes, I know, it's been right in front of me the whole time...I'm just a little (a lot??) slow.

I'm still not looking forward to explaining this to a dumbfounded coach now that it inevitably will happen to me, but at least I think I can now. Thanks for everyone's explanations, references, and patience as I hashed this out in the lump 3 feet above my a$$.

What do you mean come over to the dark side? Don't you know that JR lives in the land of the midnight sun. LOL

MTD, Sr.