Situation this past weekend - Do over

[grizwald]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The exact order of events is unclear: Was B1 already touching the table when she touched the ball?

This is what I don't know. I was sitting very near where the ball was for the inbounds pass - a good distance from the table. From where I was I didn't see B1 with her hand on the table. I originally thought that the timekeeper just completely blew it for no reason at all. However after talking to him after the game, while he still made a mistake, the mistake was somewhat understandable since he was less than a foot away from an obvious violation (if it was seen by the ref).

But I don't know if she touched the ball, then the table. Or the other way around. Based on the fact that he never started the clock, even for a split second, I'd have to think that she touched the table first or nearly simultaneously. But I don't know the answer for sure.

[bob jenkins]

If the ball goes OOB untouched, then it's a vioation of the rule you quoted -- the throw in is at the spot of the original throw in.

If the ball is touched by a player, even if the player is OOB, then it's an OOB violation on the play, not a throw-in violation.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the ball goes OOB untouched, then it's a vioation of the rule you quoted -- the throw in is at the spot of the original throw in.

If the ball is touched by a player, even if the player is OOB, then it's an OOB violation on the play, not a throw-in violation.

Okay, that makes more sense.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The exact order of events is unclear: Was B1 already touching the table when she touched the ball? If so, this would be a throw-in violation on A and the ball goes to B.

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS
A player shall not violate the following provisions governing the throw-in.
The thrower shall not:
ART. 2 . . . Fail to pass the ball directly into the court from out-of-bound so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

If not, then the ball goes to A at the table.

### Possible retraction of above statement ###

Actually, now that I re-read the rule, I'm confused by the "inbounds our out of bounds" part. It also seems to wreak havoc with the definition of "on the court" that Nevada was quoting. Is this really saying that the conditions of And does it really equate being "inbounds or out of bounds" with being "on the court"?the throw-in are met by touching a player who is out of bounds? Or am I reading it incorrectly?

And now that rampant self-doubt is running amok, I'm going to rephrase my earlier statement as a question: If B1 was OOB by virtue of touching the table when she touched the ball, would that not be the same as A1's inbound pass going OOB untouched? Or is it, instead, an OOB violation on B1?

You have the part in blue above backwards, but you already realized that. Bob J gave you the correct ruling.
Yet you raise a great point about the inconsistent use of the term "on the court" in the Rulesbook. In the definition of guarding 4-23 the words "on the court" are used to specify that a player must be inbounds. These words were also used in this same manner in the "clarifications" that were issued by NFHS committee prior to their inclusion in the Rulesbook. Just to be accurate, I'll point out that I only quoted the definition of guarding and argued by analogy the meaning of the words "on the court." We KNOW what they mean in 4-23 because the NFHS committee has said so. We DON't know what they mean in 5-9-4 or 9-2-2. In fact, there is a clear indication that "on the court" means BOTH inbounds AND out of bounds in 9-2-2. The NFHS needs to fix this. They really need to give us a definition of the playing court and what it means to be "on the court." In the past we have argued that according to Rule 1 the playing court is what is inside the sidelines and endlines. If that is true, then the committee is misusing the phrase in 9-2-2 and should change it.

Nice catch BITS.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The exact order of events is unclear: Was B1 already touching the table when she touched the ball? If so, this would be a throw-in violation on A and the ball goes to B.

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS
A player shall not violate the following provisions governing the throw-in.
The thrower shall not:
ART. 2 . . . Fail to pass the ball directly into the court from out-of-bound so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

If not, then the ball goes to A at the table.

### Possible retraction of above statement ###

Actually, now that I re-read the rule, I'm confused by the "inbounds our out of bounds" part. It also seems to wreak havoc with the definition of "on the court" that Nevada was quoting. Is this really saying that the conditions of the throw-in are met by touching a player who is out of bounds? And does it really equate being "inbounds or out of bounds" with being "on the court"? Or am I reading it incorrectly?

And now that rampant self-doubt is running amok, I'm going to rephrase my earlier statement as a question: If B1 was OOB by virtue of touching the table when she touched the ball, would that not be the same as A1's inbound pass going OOB untouched? Or is it, instead, an OOB violation on B1?

A player on the court can be inbounds or out-of-bounds and still be on the court. The rule you quote above is unambiguous. Nevada's relating it to the guarding rule is not relevant...confusing but not relavant. (This is what happens when someone decides to clarify a rule by redefining a term that was previously used consistently without adjusting other uses of that term).


The violation is NOT a throwin violation for a player to touch the throwin pass while OOB. It is a violation on the player who touches the ball.

Consider the ramifications if this were not the case: A1 throws the ball. A2 about to receive the pass. B2 gets a hand on the ball but is OOB before it gets to A2. Violation for touching a live ball while OOB. If there were to be a throwin violation on A1, B would get the ball. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense.

There is a "minor" difference in the terms. The LGP rule uses "playing court" as opposed to just "court".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A player on the court can be inbounds or out-of-bounds and still be on the court.

I'm not sure that this is a true statement for NFHS rules. I'm not saying that it is untrue either. I just don't know.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rule you quote above is unambiguous. Nevada's relating it to the guarding rule is not relevant...confusing but not relavant. (This is what happens when someone decides to clarify a rule by redefining a term that was previously used consistently without adjusting other uses of that term).

a. Yes 9-2-2 is very clear and makes a good case for your first sentence being true.
b. My looking at 4-23 is more important than you might think though. See the end of this post.
c. I agree with you that the NFHS messed up the term in its attempt to clarify the LGP rule. "On the court" and "on the playing court" are both now unclear. Does the former include both inbounds AND out of bounds areas used by the players to play the game while the latter means only the inbounds area? Possible, but again I can't say for sure. I wish I could, but I am not an authoritative source.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The violation is NOT a throwin violation for a player to touch the throwin pass while OOB. It is a violation on the player who touches the ball.

No problem here. Due to the clarity of the throw-in provisions we agree on who is committing the violation on this play. What we don't know for sure is whether or not the clock should be started on the touch by the violating player.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is a "minor" difference in the terms. The LGP rule uses "playing court" as opposed to just "court".

Ok, so are you contending that these terms mean what I wrote in part c above?
If so, then would you say that the clock should be started by the timer on the touch and then quickly stopped again when (and if) the official calls the violation? Why? Because the timing rule that is relevant here uses the words "on the court" not "playing court."

5-9-4 . . . If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the ball touches, or is touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

I am now rethinking my earlier agreement with Tony that the clock should not have started on this play. I'm now thinking that a quick start and stop might be the correct procedure.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I am now rethinking my earlier agreement with Tony that the clock should not have started on this play. I'm now thinking that a quick start and stop might be the correct procedure.

Regarding the clock, I think the correct answer is both. The clock may or may not start. The timer should only be starting the clock when indicated by the official...not on his own....unless the official clearly forgets. If the official indicates that time should start, it should...and it should only stop on the whistle. This can easily occur if the catch occurs on a line not covered by the official covering the throwin (who can't see if the player is on the line or not). If both parts are covered by the same official, he should not chop time in since there is a violation that makes the ball dead at the very instant that it would have started and that official has all the element needed to make the call. In a perfect world, the clock would never start in either case. So, there will alway be some "delays" between infractions and the whistle. I think there is no mistake in either case.

The terminology partially boils down to the fact that those on the rules committee at the time 4-23 changed with a "clarification" really change the rule without calling it such. For decades, the game was played with defenders taking a position with a foot on the line (and no one I know ever considered whether the foot was touching the line or not when deciding to call a block or charge). Accepting 4-23 for what was intended, I do not think they were trying to define the term of "the court". I think they were using in a descriptive sense and the exact meaning was intending to come from the entire context and not from those specific words.
.