Has anyone studied item in the case book under 10-1-8 "A Specific Unsportsmanlike Play"? How bizarre can these people get in their exceptions and variations? Isn't this worse than the infield fly rule? Has anyone out there in Refland ever invoked Case 10-1-8?

I've never had it happen but I can imagine it happening at lower levels of play.

I have to disagree with you there. Have you read some of the bizarre plays that people post on this and other boards? Then we try to pick apart the rule book to find a rule that fits the situation. That's the reason such case plays are in the book. Somewhere, sometime, that exact play has happened and there was a big stink (am I permitted to say that word :)) about it.

What's wrong with the infield fly rule?

read the note. In most cases, this would not be called a technical foul because it would not be a deliberate act. Only the deliberate act to delay the game by this procedure would result in the T.

As to how bezarre this play is. The reason this play is in the book is someone had it and had to ask someone who asked someone who was on the committee. They considered it and put the situation in the case book. The purpose of the rule book and the case book is so that we know what to do when we can't figure out what to do from common sense. Since there are some officials without common sense, we have to write down everything we can think of for the case book.

Furthermore, it probably got in the book not just because the rules committee was asked about it but because some team(s) were regularly attempting. I suspect they were hoping to catch the officials and the other team asleep to get an extra 2 points. To only cancel the action would not discourage the act and the only other penalty to be added would be a T.

I don't think it's bizarre as a play. I think the handling of it is bizarre, and it seems contradictory to everything else. I'm not disagreeing with it, or saying that's it's wrong, but I don't understand why we cancel everythingthat happened, including putting time back on the clock, in this one case only. What makes this different from other screw-ups and errors?

Because this isn't an official's mistake. In cases where we allow the wrong player to shoot a FT, administer a throw-in to the wrong team, or allow teams to go the wrong direction, we have made the mistake. In this situation, no mistake has been made by an official. Therefore, a procedure has to be established to handle it. Think about it. If this procedure wasn't established, each time a team scored they could grab the ball, inbound it and score, over and over again.

And again, what's wrong with the infield fly rule? :)

What's the rule
 

What is the rule that we're talking about? (for those of us that don't have NF rule books)

A SPECIFIC UNSPORTSMANLIKE ACT
10.1.8. Play: Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, or following a time-out in this situation, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket. Ruling: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situation if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins.
a. Charge Team A with a technical foul.
b. Cancel the field goal.
c. Cancel any common foul(s) committed and any nonflagrant foul against A2 in the act of shooting.
d. Put "consumed" time back on the clock.
Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, especially after a time-out, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball.

Thanks
 

Thanks for that.

Has anybody actually seen this happen?

I couldn't imagine that it would be a very common occurance, especially on purpose.

Are you serious? Would you really let this happen if this wasn't in the case book? Of course not. If you felt they were doing it on purpose, you would call a T every time they tried to do it before they got anywhere near scoring.

Nothing that I know. In fact, in my family, it is a tradition to recite the rule to all newborn babies (this is true). We are a baseball lovin' tribe.

I didn't say I would let it happen. I said it could happen. The documentation is in the book for that purpose. If I'm so wrong, why don't you tell us what the purpose of the play is Mr. Smarty Britches? :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

Nothing that I know. In fact, in my family, it is a tradition to recite the rule to all newborn babies (this is true). We are a baseball lovin' tribe.

That's for Juulie. She doesn't like the infield fly rule for some reason.

The purpose of the play is irrelevent as to why it's in the casebook. The reason it's in there is because someone on the NF rules committee had it happen in a game and didn't know what to do, so he made up a specific penalty in case it happened to him again, so he could say "AHA, Gotcha". This is how most cases get into the book. ;)

Personally, I think it's easier to understand than the correctible error litany. :) Next time I see Juulie, I'll explain the infield fly rule to her, with pictures and everything!

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Jul 6th, 2001 at 04:05 PM]

In my family, the infield-fly-rule is used as the ultimate metaphor for something complicated, arcane and difficult to explain. That's only because no one in my family ever knew Mark Padgett. I'm sure, the next time I see Mark, it will all be crystal clear. And then what will my family discuss over the turkey? I suppose we'll choose some tax-deduction as the new metaphor.

About rule 10.1.8, Thanks for typing it out, Tony. I neglected to consider that some on this board would be at a disadvantage without the text written out. I see what you mean about it not being a referee error, but what about other times when the "mistake" is a player problem, like...

okay give me a day or two, here, I need to process.

In my family, I am used as the ultimate metaphor for something complicated, arcane and difficult to explain ;)

For those of you who are not familiar with the word arcane, it means secretive and/or esoteric.

For those of you who are not familiar with the word difficult,you must be a coach.

Thanks!
 

What does esoteric mean?

While I'm waiting, I'll make a point. The only time you can correct the wrong team inbounding the ball is when the official doesn't hand the ball to the player. in other words, if you put the ball on the floorsand start your count and B1 picks it up, you can blow the whistle and stop the play. If the ball is bouncing around after a basket and the team that scored attempts to inbound it, you can stop the play. Why? Because these aren't mistakes made by an official. They are "player mistakes." Is that what you're looking for?

I already said that! :)

And I'm not even going to start a discussion about the meaning of "esoteric!"

Re: Thanks!
 

Arcane.

Thanks, this is helpful. Are you saying that if I hand off the ball, start the 5-second count, and then realize that I've done it wrong, or perhaps my partner realizes I've done it wrong, I can't blow it dead and start over? Even if that's not okay, most of us would, wouldn't we?

If you realize your mistake before the throw-in is complete, you can correct it. However, when the throw-in is complete, it's too late to correct. 7.5.2b

I thought once the ball became live (when it was handed to the wrong team)it was to late...unless it is an alternating throw in possesion.

I wrote the statement based on 7.5.2b.

Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. The administering official by mistake, puts the ball at B1's disposal. <b>B1 completes the throw-in</b> and Team B subsequently scores a goal. Ruling: No correction can be made for the mistake by the official.

I don't see any reason the mistake couldn't be corrected during a normal throw-in if it can be corrected during an AP throw-in. Perhaps we can research it more.

My reasoning is that this is not a correctable error
so blowing the play dead is an inadvertent whistle
which goes back to the team in possession (still the wrong team)unless it is an AP throw in since a team does not lose the opportunity to make a AP throw in on an inadvertent whistle the AP throw in would be made by the team entittled to it.

Re: Thanks!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick

Quote:

What does esoteric mean?

I think it's one of them geological time periods.
The esoteric era fell between the pan-generic era and
the curvatious-mongolith era. It was during this
time period when small brained pre-humans roamed the earth
and developed a very limited, barely useful vocabulary.

Their mating ritual required them to loudly yell some
phrases to attract receptive partners. Unfortunately,
these phrases were yelled so loudly that heads would often explode before mating was succesfully accomplished. This
is thought to be the main cause of their eventual near
extinction. Remnants of this early tribe still exist,
you can recognize them by listening carefully for some
of their more common phrases:


"That's terrible! How can you call that?!"
"3 seconds! He's been in there all day!"
(This is sometimes followed by a ritualistic trance
inducing counting: "1...2...3...4...5...")
"You gotta have *something* on that!"
"That's not a charge! His feet were moving!"
"Come on! Call it both ways!"
"You are *the worse* I've seen in 20 years!"

I guess we need some clarification. I recall that this has been discussed before but I can't remember what the conclusion was. Based on 7.5.2b, it would seem that it could be corrected before the throw-in ended. But I can see where the ball becoming live would make it too late to correct.

Best thing to do - don't make the mistake to begin with! :)

I believe it is correctable until the throw-in is complete. I go with the reasoning of why we have a throwin at all. It's because there was a violation, foul, held ball, or timeout. All of them specify a throwin is to occur.

That was my original thought but Paul got me to thinking. The best solution is to avoid it to begin with. :)

I will always agree with this, but it also makes this discussion board significantly decrease in value. It is just because of such things we hammer out what to do, or how to properly recover.

My guess is that you can almost always correct it (before the inbound pass) and justify your action. Everyone will agree we want to "get it right." If a real "by the book only" coach insists on not correcting the mistake, there will probably be either a violation or foul coming real quick. ;)