The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Technical or Violation if (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/29780-technical-violation-if.html)

djpriceii Thu Nov 30, 2006 09:48am

Technical or Violation if
 
player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

IREFU2 Thu Nov 30, 2006 09:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by djpriceii
player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

Violation:

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS


ART. 6 . . . The thrown ball shall not touch the thrower in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

Raymond Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by djpriceii
player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

Definitely not a technical to touch the ball first. Need more information to determine if it is a violation.

Please provide the scenario.

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:08am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IREFU2
Violation:

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS


ART. 6 . . . The thrown ball shall not touch the thrower in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

Probably not applicable. A "player" could be any of the 10 team members legally on the court. A "thrower" is one specific case only. That's why more info is needed.

Scrapper1 Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:10am

Quote:

Originally Posted by djpriceii
player goes out of bounds and then reenters and is first to touch? high school

In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in. But it sounds to me like your talking about a player who goes out of bounds around a screen and then comes back inbounds to catch a pass for an open jump shot.

In high school, it is a violation as soon as the player goes out of bounds. You don't wait for him to come back in and catch the ball.

(PS -- it used to be a technical foul, but was changed to a violation a couple of seasons ago.)

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.

Then why is 7.1.1SitD(a) in the case book?:confused: That fits what the original poster mighta been referring to.

just another ref Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:21am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Then why is 7.1.1SitD(a) in the case book?:confused: That fits what the original poster mighta been referring to.

As far as I can tell, it's in there to say that coming back in and being first to touch is irrelevant. (legal)

IREFU2 Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.






As far as I can tell, it's in there to say that coming back in and being first to touch is irrelevant. (legal)

If its is a throw in, the thrower can not be the first to touch the ball.

Scrapper1 Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Then why is 7.1.1SitD(a) in the case book?:confused: That fits what the original poster mighta been referring to.

Grrrrrr. Make me open the casebook. . . Grumble, grumble.

It's there just to dispel the myth about being the "first to touch". Being the first to touch the ball is irrelevant to whether a violation has been committed or not, as I already said. In all three situations of that case play, there was no violation for touching the ball after returning inbounds. So the touching is irrelevant to whether a violation was committed or not. The violation in (c) is for dribbling a second time; not for coming back inbounds and recovering the ball.

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
In high school, "being the first to touch" is irrelevant, unless you're talking about a throw-in.

As far as I can tell, it's in there to say that coming back in and being first to touch is irrelevant. <font color = red>(legal)</font>

Which is exactly the question that the original poster asked (I think).....

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Grrrrrr. Make me open the casebook. . . Grumble, grumble.

It's there just to dispel the myth about being the "first to touch". Being the first to touch the ball is irrelevant to whether a violation has been committed or not, as I already said. In all three situations of that case play, there was no violation for touching the ball after returning inbounds. So the touching is irrelevant to whether a violation was committed or not. The violation in (c) is for dribbling a second time; not for coming back inbounds and recovering the ball.

That's cool. But is that what the original poster was referring to, Carnac? That case play sureashell fits what he posted imo(almost word-for-word). If so, that would make the correct answer to the OP be "neither-legal play".

Scrapper1 Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
That's cool. But is that what the original poster was referring to, Carnac?

Well, I didn't think so. Because he asked if it was a violation or T. I can't imagine anyone might think that the penalty for 7.1.1D(a) would be a T. Seemed more reasonable that he was asking about leaving the court to go around a screen.

But in either case, touching the ball first is still irrelevant to the question.

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But in either case, touching the ball first is still irrelevant to the question.

Not if the answer is "legal play" and the OP didn't know that.

Raymond Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
But in either case, touching the ball first is still irrelevant to the question.

Would it be relevant if rule 9-3 Note was the scenario in question?

tmp44 Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:57am

Definitely not a technical...9-3-2 is the violation (maybe poster is confused because this was a T for one year and then changed back???)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1