Rule Relapse - Please Help

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

1)1) If the thrower holds the ball across the OOB line and the defender takes the ball away, are you calling an OOB violation?

2) If the throw-in is a bounce pass, that touches the court inbounds, and then is touched by a player (either team) with a foot on the OOB line, are you still saying the ball "is already out of bounds."

1) That case is specifically outlined in the rules. It is also not a throw-in per se. The ball was never released by the thrower. That's why it's a held ball.

2) That's irrelevant. The player standing OOB that first touched the throw-in committed a violation as per rule 9-2-10. The listed penalty for that violation is a throw-in to the opponents at the original throw-in spot.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

This is NOT a legal throw-in, and does fall under the Penalty section of what we're talking about. The ball touching the court inbounds has nothing to do with whether or not the throw-in provisions have been violated.

Oops, you're right! But the ball does have inbound status at that time, I would think.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

No disrepsect...but given Peter's background, I think he is more qualified to interpret this rule than anyone on this message board.

Peter has served as an IAABO-certified rules interpreter/trainer for 37 years and he has been the IAABO worldwide coordinator of interpreters and trainers since 2004. He served on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee from 1992 to 1996 and was then invited to serve as the liaison between the NFHS committee and IAABO, a position he has held since 1997. He is one of only two people on the NFHS National Faculty certified to train the trainers of basketball officials.

No disrespect either, but Mr. Webb's ruling goes completely contrary to what is written in the rulebook. Until Mr. Webb can get the rulebook changed to fit his interpretation, I think that I'll go with the rule book states now. Iow, Mr. Webb's interpretation at this time is no more credible than that of any other poster on this forum, no matter what his qualifications. He's just another person giving his personal opinion-- and his personal opinion doesn't mean that it's automatically correct. That holds true for all of us posting here.

Btw, please note that Mr. Webb did not consider rule 9-2-10 as one of the references he gave to support his interpretation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Oops, you're right! But the ball does have inbound status at that time, I would think.

Maybe by virtue of geography; but legally it's still a during a throwin. By rule, it's only status is "throwin."

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No disrespect either, but Mr. Webb's ruling goes completely contrary to what is written in the rulebook.

That is because the rule book contradicts itself. Either position is contrary to the rulebook.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) That's irrelevant. The player standing OOB that first touched the throw-in committed a violation as per rule 9-2-10. The listed penalty for that violation is a throw-in to the opponents at the original throw-in spot.

You have made your case clearly. It is not the interpretation of this exact play that I have been given. I have been instructed that the violation is for causing the ball to go OOB (9-3-1) and the correct throw-in spot is that nearest the violation. (9-3-1 penalty).

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Mr. Webb's interpretation at this time is no more credible than that of any other poster on this forum, no matter what his qualifications. He's just another person giving his personal opinion.

You have confused the fact that everyone is equal in their right to have an opinion with the myth that all opinions are equal. They are not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What evidence do you have that the player was OOB before the ball left the hands of the thrower-in?

What's that got to do with anything? The violation I referenced in 9-2-10 is for being OOB when the player touched or was touched by the throw-in.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What's that got to do with anything? The violation I referenced in 9-2-10 is for being OOB when the player touched or was touched by the throw-in.

You're right, I misundersood your point.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You have confused the fact that everyone is equal in their right to have an opinion with the myth that all opinions are equal. They are not.

When there is a definitive ruling in the rule book, then any opinion going against that ruling is an incorrect opinion imo. Note that I'm not giving my own feeling as to what the correct call might turn out to be. I'm going by the strict wording of the rule book now. And Mr. Webb admits himself that the strict wording of the rule book has to be clarified to fit his opinion.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

You have made your case clearly. It is not the interpretation of this exact play that I have been given. I have been instructed that the violation is for causing the ball to go OOB (9-3-1) and the correct throw-in spot is that nearest the violation. (9-3-1 penalty).

By definition(4-42-5), a throw-in ends when the when the throw-in pass touches someone who is either in or out of bounds. The throw-in act ended by touching someone who was OOB, which is a violation of rule 9-2-10. How can it be anything other than a throw-in violation?

Iow, R9-3 is simply an irrelevant rules reference imo.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Regarding your expressed concern about "Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponent for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot." 9.2.10 ... for whatever it is worth, I believe that 9.2.10 may need to be clarified due to the change that you refer to. However, I believe that the rules clearly indicate that to be out of bounds (have foot on or beyond the boundary line, while attempting to play the ball or to be just standing there playing and touch or be touched by the ball causes the ball to be out of bounds and is a violation. Also, the rules clearly indicate that the throw-in shall be at the spot nearest to where the violation occurred.The thrower-in is clearly not causing/committing the violation. The other player is causing the violation. Rules References: 7.1&.2 (a); 7.5.2; 7.6.1; 9.2.2; 9.3.1 (see penalty)

I understand the root of your concern. I have made note to add the concern to the Rules Committee agenda.

Now I know why the rule book is so hard to understand. This guy really writes the way the rule book is written.

[BayStateRef]

JR cites 9-2-10 to say this is a throw-in violation. But other rules just as clearly state otherwise.

7-6-1 requires: The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

That is exactly what happened. The throw-in was made to another player and was touched -- out of bounds -- which is exactly what this rule allows. This makes it a legal throw-in; not a throw-in violation. Since the throw-in was legal, we need to look elsewhere for a violation. That elsewhere is 9-3-1, (causing the ball to go OOB).

Also, we need to look at how this change occurred. It was "snuck in" without notice in 2004-05. And I am told (and have shared with this group) by a member of the Rules Committee, that this was not the intent of the change. If the Fed actually wanted to change the rule for this violation and bring the ball back to the original throw-in spot, I suggest that it would have included this as a "major editorial change."

As much as I enjoy this exercise, my bottom line is that the rule is not nearly as clear as JR suggests. Given that, I have to follow the interpretation from my rules experts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

7-6-1 requires: The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

That is exactly what happened. The throw-in was made to another player and was touched -- out of bounds -- which is exactly what this rule allows.

And what does rule 9-2-2 state?

Lemme help you out--"The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player(in bounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched".

And does 7-6-1 specify a throw-in spot for that violation?

But...... where does the penalty for 9-2-2 state that the subsequent throw-in after the violation shall go?

All together now.......

[Adam]

Good grief, rule 9-2-10 is perfectly clear. “No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass.” How much clearer can it be? Maybe the Fed meant this to only apply to members of the thrower’s team; but we don’t know this. Until they clarify otherwise (I would even take a case play) I have to apply this as written. Original spot, as it’s a throwin violation on the defense.
As such, if it happens during an AP throwin; the arrow stays put.