Rule Relapse - Please Help
 

For the 18th time this year: (I apologize)

Thower A1 releases the ball so that it is first touched by B1 who has out of bounds status.

A's ball at the spot nearest the out of bounds violation by B, or A's ball at the original throw-in spot?

Since B player is out of bounds when they caught the ball, B caused the ball to go out of bounds. A's ball at the nearest spot to the B violation.

Note: Long time ago in the 70's, it was a violation on A for not throwing the ball onto the court like they were suppose to. I'm gald they changed that ruling!!! A coach would never understand.

But, based on an "unannounced" change a couple of years ago, the rule apparenlty reads that the ball will go back to the original spot. Since it was unannounced, it's unclear if that was the intent.

Are you sure? I've been officiating since 1959, and I can't remember that rule being any different during that time than it is now.

Look in the 2006-2007 NFHS rule book, Rule 9, section 2, article 10.
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.

OK, now look just beneath there for the PENALTY:
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 original throw-in spot.

This penalty has not always read like this. I do not know exactly when it changed, but it has previously said:
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.

So.......according to current reading, the succeeding throw in would take place at the original throw in spot.

So then...
 

Based on the previously mentioned unannounced change in the Rule Book and it's resulting confusion/ambiguity, how are YOU ruling on this play as it happens on the next throw-in you administer today?

I'm calling B1 an idiot and we'll go back to the original spot.

Has anyone ever checked to see if this was actually an intended change or a misprint in the book? I know that about 3 years ago we spent the first 20 minutes or so in a VB rules meeting making corrections to misprints in the rules book.

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.

JR..
I seem to remember that being the rule in 1971 or 72 when I first began officiating. I was studying rules with my partner and I commented that I would hate to make that call against the home team with a full gym.:(

Please read this entire thread:

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...ht=unannounced

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.

1959!!??
Wow. Hats off. Incredible!

That's nothin'. Heck, he's been driving the same Model T since 1908.

Ah yes, the Good Old Days!

You didn't have to have a license or insurance. Wimmen weren't allowed to drive or sit in the front seat. And it was legal to run over dogs and small children.

I do miss it so.