Rule Relapse - Please Help

[Texas Aggie]

I'm usually ruling it a section 3, rather than section 2, violation. Section 3 = caused the ball to go out of bounds. Rule 7.2 supports this. Section 2 deals with throw in violations and the vast majority of violations in that section deal with the team throwing the ball in. Yes, I know it doesn't specify a team, but I believe the (or at least one) intent of the rule is to clearly prevent passing the ball along the out of bounds area among members of the same team. Thus, it may be a bit redundant.

I say, usually, because if I feel the team getting the ball has gained an unfair advantage (I don't know how; just in case) I can follow the provisions of section 2.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I'm usually ruling it a section 3, rather than section 2, violation.

Unfortunately, this situation is a clear violation of 9-2-10, and just as clearly (IMHO) falls under the penalty for Section 2. Also, the player who catches the throw-in pass while out of bounds has NOT caused the ball to out of bounds -- because the ball was already out of bounds for the throw-in.

So I think we're stuck with a violation of 9-2-10 and a throw-in for A at the original throw-in spot.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Unfortunately, this situation is a clear violation of 9-2-10, and just as clearly (IMHO) falls under the penalty for Section 2. Also, the player who catches the throw-in pass while out of bounds has NOT caused the ball to out of bounds -- because the ball was already out of bounds for the throw-in.
So I think we're stuck with a violation of 9-2-10 and a throw-in for A at the original throw-in spot.

It may be clear to you, but that is not the ruling I have received from my rules interpreter and from Peter Webb, the national IAABO rules interpreter. Peter is is a former memeber of the NFHS Rules Committee and currently sits on the Rules Committee as the IAABO liaison

Peter's ruling is that the throw-in spot is nearest the OOB violation -- and not a throw-in violation. This is from an email that Peter sent to me on this issue:

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.

As to why this change was made "without notice," Peter said:

I think that it was an oversight. When some changes are made (this was one of those) there are many other many places within the rules affected. There were many articles that got changed to comply. I think it is simply a housekeeping chore to remedy.

My ruling, if this play comes up in my games this year, will be as Peter instructs.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

This part of the email is irrelevant to the discussion. The person catching the inbounds pass did not cause the ball to be out of bounds, because it already was out of bounds.

Aside from that, though, I appreciate you sharing that email with us. I respect Mr. Webb's knowledge a great deal. I'm still not sure I agree with his view of this play, but I appreciate knowing his opinion.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This part of the email is irrelevant to the discussion. The person catching the inbounds pass did not cause the ball to be out of bounds, because it already was out of bounds.

Aside from that, though, I appreciate you sharing that email with us. I respect Mr. Webb's knowledge a great deal. I'm still not sure I agree with his view of this play, but I appreciate knowing his opinion.

I too think Peter's correct.

Fed 7-6-1 states:

...The thrower shall release the ball on a pass directly into the court, except as in 7-5-7, within five seconds after the throw-in starts. The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) before going out of bounds untouched...

Unless I misinterpret the words I underlined it is not a throw-in violation for the ball to touch a player out of bounds on the throw-in. So the throw-in ends legally and the player OOB violates by being OOB when he touches the ball (what we non-hair splitters call "causes the ball the be OOB").

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I too think Peter's correct.

Fed 7-6-1 states:

...The thrower shall release the ball on a pass directly into the court, except as in 7-5-7, within five seconds after the throw-in starts. The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) before going out of bounds untouched...

Unless I misinterpret the words I underlined it is not a throw-in violation for the ball to touch a player out of bounds on the throw-in. So the throw-in ends legally and the player OOB violates by being OOB when he touches the ball (what we non-hair splitters call "causes the ball the be OOB").

FED 7-6-1 is exactly the same as FED 9-2-2. The listed penalty for 9-2-2 is a throw-in to the opponents from the original throw-in spot.

Didn't the player who caught the throw-in OOB also violate rule 9-2-10--"No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass"? The listed penalty for doing that also is a throw-in to the opponents at the original throw-in spot.

Unfortunately, the literal writing of R9-2PENALTY(Section 2) states that the throw-in spot following these particular violations is at the original throw-in spot. Peter Webb may be right in theory, but until he gets the book changed to reflect his theory, he is wrong imo.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

FED 7-6-1 is exactly the same as FED 9-2-2. The listed penalty for 9-2-2 is a throw-in to the opponents from the original throw-in spot.

No my spam generating friend, it is not. The violation is exactly for NOT complying with 9-2-2. IOW if a player inbounds or OOB does NOT touch the ball before the throw-in goes out of bounds then you apply 9-2-2 penalty.

Didn't the player who caught the throw-in OOB also violate rule 9-2-10--"No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass"? The listed penalty for doing that also is a throw-in to the opponents at the original throw-in spot.

Wha? That virus must have spread to your brain.

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

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, the literal writing of R9-2PENALTY(Section 2) states that the throw-in spot following these particular violations is at the original throw-in spot. Peter Webb may be right in theory, but until he gets the book changed to reflect his theory, he is wrong imo.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

(what we non-hair splitters call "causes the ball the be OOB").

Peter may very well be correct. But how can someone cause a ball that's already out of bounds to be out of bounds?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Peter may very well be correct. But how can someone cause a ball that's already out of bounds to be out of bounds?

Once you accept the fact that there are 2 types of out of bounds it will become clear to you.

Think about it & get back to me if you can't puzzle this one out, Batman.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This part of the email is irrelevant to the discussion. The person catching the inbounds pass did not cause the ball to be out of bounds, because it already was out of bounds.

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

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."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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

No, because (as you well know, I'm sure, or you wouldn't be asking the question ), we are specifically told that the ball is in play and that the defender may hold it or bat it away from the inbounder.

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."

Obviously not, because the ball touched the court inbounds. Legal throw-in. But that's also obviously not the situation that is under discussion.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Obviously not, because the ball touched the court inbounds. Legal throw-in. But that's also obviously not the situation that is under discussion.

It may be a legal throw-in, but until the ball is touched or goes out of bounds untouched, the throw-in is not completed. If a bounce pass goes out of bounds untouched, we bring the ball back to the original spot for a throw-in. That certainly is a throw-in violation. 9-2-2.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Obviously not, because the ball touched the court inbounds. Legal throw-in. But that's also obviously not the situation that is under discussion.

I didn't intend to stir all this up again, but since strange things are being said here...

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.

And by the way I purposefully phrased the original post, this fits precisely into what we're talking about. The player you're talking about has out of bounds status, which is in the OP. The ball touching the court or not is irrelevant.

[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.