Sorry, I read the rule too fast. Yes the COUNT ends when the ball is released and the throw-in ends when the ball is touched by a player either inbounds or out of bounds! So rule 7-5-7 still does not apply!

Thanks for the correction.:)

I am still waiting on a reply from Mary Struckhoff (Editor of NFHS rulebook) on the backcourt rule. Everyone that I have asked (up through the state rules committee) says that my interpretation is correct. We will let Mary decide and if I am wrong I will call that backcourt play as you suggest!:D

Now this is getting ridiculous!!! :mad:

I just discovered that 4-42-5 was changed this season without any notice. Another freakin' unannounced change!!! What is the NFHS doing?

2005-06 Rules Book Version:
RULE 4
SECTION 42 THROW-IN, THROWER, DESIGNATED SPOT
ART. 5 . . . The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, an inbounds player other than the thrower.


2006-07 Rules Book Version:
RULE 4
SECTION 42 THROW-IN, THROWER, DESIGNATED SPOT
ART. 5 . . . The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, another player who is either inbounds or out of bounds.


I was just about to contend that the most recent wording of the penalty section for 9-2 makes logical sense because the player who touched the ball in these examples was out of bounds thus his touching did not end the throw-in--only a touch by an inbounds player would end the throw-in (in 2005-06). So bringing the ball back to the original spot for the ensuing throw-in was starting to make sense to me. However, now they go and change the rule this year, thus that rationale doesn't work anymore.

ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! :mad:

Well the way they are going the NFHS might as well just change that rule too and screw me up even more! :confused: :(

My head hurts. Where is that graphic that JR always posts of the smiley face blowing up? :D

If you really want your head to explode - check the wording on all these "unannounced changes" and compare them with the wording in the NCAA rule book...they are making changes that pretty much match the NCAA rules.

That's fine with me. I believe that the HS and College rules should be the same. It doesn't even bother me that they are making changes. What has me ticked off is that they don't bother to let anyone know that they are doing so. :mad: How are we supposed to keep up with them?

Ignoring the fact that they changed the wording for a second. Why would you even consider bringing the ball back to the original spot when the throwin is first touched by an OOB player? I could see where you're going if that player was on the same team as the thrower...sort of like throwing it directly OOB without being touched....treating it like a throwin violation.

BUT, what if the player that is OOB is on the other team. Who has actually violated? The thrower or the player touching it OOB? Of course you'll agree that it is the player who thouches the ball OOB and that location is the location of the violation (not the throwin spot).

Now, flip the situation back to the teammate of the thrower. The rule makes absolutely no distinction about what team touches the ball OOB. So, the teammate case has the same enforcement as the opponent case.

So, your rationale never worked....unless you were going to give the ball to the defending team when they were able to contact a throwin while OOB. ;)

Uh, Camron, because the new wording of the penalty section in 9-2 says to do just that. Did you read this whole thread? JR quoted the ruling.

The OOB player (doesn't matter which team) violated 9-2-10. The penalty clearly states to award the ball to the opponents at the original throw-in spot.

But 9-3 says nearest the violation, so I guess you take your pick. I'm with Camron, I choose 9-3. I think this is an oversight in the book, which hopefully will be addressed in the future.

I agree with the underlined part. I even can agree with the part in red where you state that the location of the violation is where the OOB player touched the ball. However, according to the new wording of the penalty section of 9-2 it doesn't matter. ALL THROW-IN VIOLATIONS RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL SPOT. In other words, whenever and whereever an article in 9-2 is infringed, the opponent gets the ball back at the original throw-in spot. We no longer award the ball at the nearest OOB spot to the violation. That language was changed.

That is what I was flipping out about back in post #6 of this thread. If you skipped it go read it again.

The player may be violating 9-3, but in legalistic terms he also may not be. Here is the mental leap that you have to take.

If this were a normal play during the course of the game, with a live ball that was thrown from inbounds, then only 9-3 would apply to the situation and the ruling would be simple. However, this play clearly occurs DURING A THROW-IN and there are specific provisions that govern the thrown-in. They are listed in 9-2. One of them is 9-2-10.

Now the case could very well be made that during the throw-in those provisions are the ones that have priority and the other rules which may conflict with them are temporarily suspended until the throw-in ends. It is like having a special subset of rules that are only in effect for a very short amount of time. Using that way of thinking the player is not committing an OOB violation per 9-3, rather he is breaking a throw-in rule, specifically 9-2-10, and we need to enforce the penalty for that.

Viewed in that way, there is no conflict between the two rules. 9-3 simply doesn't apply to this situation. It would begin to apply only after the throw-in has ended.

If this was the intent, it would have been easy to list the exception in 9-3.
Since this was not done, it seems to leave the door open to individual interpretation. I believe that in this case 9-3 is the logical answer.

So you are going to ignore the rule that is specific to throw-ins in favor of one that is not? I don't believe that Mr. Spock would be happy with you. :)

The Mr. Spock I know says it is more logical to continue to enforce the rule the way it has been since stardate <a long time ago> than it is to change and do something based on a new rule which is not only in conflict with the old, but also, in and of itself, does not make sense.

By that logic, you wouldn't enforce any new rule the NFHS wrote. For example, the team control foul.

Look, on the one hand you have a rule that is clearly for throw-ins on the other hand you have a rule that doesn't say that it is for throw-ins. The two conflict. You ask yourself, "Was this a throw-in play?" You certainly answer yes. It looks like you ought to apply the rule for throw-ins.

You don't have to like the new rule, you don't have to believe that it makes sense, but you do have to admit that it is that it is indeed the rule and that it is your job to enforce it.

You are correct. I've been pretty busy lately and have read entire threads....I should have on this one.

I can't imagine why this would be the case. It is fully inconsistent with all other OOB situations.