![]() |
Where is the Throw-in?
(1) A1 has a baseline throw-in near the free throw lane. A2 catches the ball, near midcourt, while standing completely OOB along the sideline. Where is the throw-in?
(2) A1 has a baseline throw-in near the free throw lane. A2 catches the ball, near midcourt, while 1 foot is touching the sideline. Where is the throw-in? (3) A1 has a baseline throw-in near the free throw lane. B2 catches the ball, near midcourt, while standing completely OOB along the sideline. Where is the throw-in? (4) A1 has a baseline throw-in near the free throw lane. B2 catches the ball, near midcourt, while 1 foot is touching the sideline. Where is the throw-in? |
Quote:
In the first two cases, the real question is what violation did the player who stepped OOB commit 9-2-10, 9-2-12, or 9-3-2. In the final two cases 9-2-12 wouldn't apply, so the choice would be between the other two. :) |
I'll take a shot at this....
1. Throw-in is where A2 caused ball to go OOB. 2. Throw-in is where A2 caused ball to go OOB. 3. Throw-in is where B2 caused ball to go OOB. 4. Throw-in is where B2 caused ball to go OOB. |
Quote:
|
After reading the dinosaur's post I change my answer and agree with his ruling......
|
Quote:
This is crazy. I was sure that I knew the proper application of this rule, so I went and checked my books. Sure enough the NFHS changed the wording in the penalty section in 2004-05 without notice. Furthermore, they reorganized the layout of the entire section (9-2) in the 2005-06 book without comment. Here is what the penalty section said in 2003-04 prior to the change: Penalty: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation or technical foul occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. Compare that to what JR provided above for the 2006-07 version and you will see the difference. This clearly changes the location of the ensuing throw-in. It appears that I have been unaware that I have been administering this incorrectly for two years now. |
This is interesting. I would have interpreted this completely wrong, and now that I've looked through all the relevant items, I see the correct way. Thanks for the learning opprotunity. Now I've had my one new thing for the day, and I can go back to being a mindless slug, even at our rules clinic which is this evening!
|
Juulie,
I think that you should definitely point this out to Howard at your rules clinic. This is something of which the entire association should be made aware. You even have my permission to print out my previous post and show it to him. I'm very interested in what he says. I don't know if the NFHS is even aware of the consequences of their wording change. Did they just make an editorial screw-up or did they really intend to change the rule? I trust that Howard has the proper contacts to get the proper answers. |
Quote:
Do you consider the status of a player to be the same as where they are standing? ANSWER:Yup. What status does a player have when they're standing OOB? ANSWER: Well...they're OOB. What happens if a thrower throws a throw-in OOB without it touching a player in-bounds first? ANSWER: You go back to the original throw-in spot. Makes sense to me- logically. They're just treating the OOB player as being the same as the floor OOB. |
Quote:
The OOB player still caused the ball to go OOB, right? So why are we bringing the ball all the way back down the floor to the original throw-in spot?:confused: Furthermore, what if the original throw-in was an endline running throw-in instead of a designated-spot one? If A1 makes the throw-in and B1 is the OOB player at the other end of the court who is standing with one foot OOB when he catches the ball, does Team A retain the right to run on the ensuing throw-in per 7-5-7? :confused: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Spot throw in
This would be a spot throw in because the throw-in ends when the ball is released by A1. So 7-5-7 would not apply any more!:)
|
This is a direct conflict, is it not?
9-2-10 says one thing, but..... 9-3-1: A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds. penalty:.....awarded to the opponents......spot nearest the violation 7-2-2 If the ball is out of bounds because of touching or being touched by a player who is on or outside a boundary line, such player causes it to go out. :confused: |
Quote:
Go read 4-42-5. |
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: |
Quote:
My head hurts. Where is that graphic that JR always posts of the smiley face blowing up? :D |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. ;) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
That is what I was flipping out about back in post #6 of this thread. If you skipped it go read it again. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I can't imagine why this would be the case. It is fully inconsistent with all other OOB situations. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20pm. |