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.

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.

That was the one. Thanks, Nevada.

So just for my own edification - you are calling it by the letter of the Rule, as it currently reads then? Back to the original spot?

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").

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 <b>original throw-in spot</b>.

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

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.

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

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. 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? Being out of bounds before the throw-in is released is completely different from what we're discussing. And it doesn't relate to 9-2-10 at all.

You're asking the wrong person.

Mr Spam-o-master brought the this up, I agree with you it's irrelevant.

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.

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.

1) That case is specifically outlined in the rules. It is also not a throw-in <i>per se</i>. 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 <b>first</b> 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 <b>original throw-in spot</b>.

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

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 <b>now</b>. 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.

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

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

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).

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.

What's that got to do with anything?:confused: 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.

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 <b>now</b>. And Mr. Webb admits himself that the strict wording of the rule book has to be clarified to fit his <b>opinion</b>.

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 <b>throw-in</b> violation?

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

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

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.

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 <font color = red>it touches or is touched by another player(in bounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched</font>".

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.......:D

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.

As some of us have said Fed 7-6-1 states just as clearly "The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) before going out of bounds untouched..."

I understand that, but I don't understand why that is relevant to our conversation. The person making the throw-in has not violated, because he/she has met the conditions of 7-6-1. That's not even an issue.

But the person who catches the throw-in while out of bounds HAS committed a violation per 9-2-10 (NOT per 7-2-1, since the ball was never inbounds). The penalty for that infraction is a throw-in from the previous throw-in spot.

If someone thinks that the PENALTY section for 9-2 is mis-printed, fine. But there's no possible way to dispute the infraction that has occured, in my mind. 7-6-1 doesn't apply to our situation. 7-2-1 doesn't apply to our situation. The only infraction that has occured is 9-2-10. That's JMO, of course. But I think those of you on the other side are stretching things way too thin.

errrr....wha?

Even though 7-6-1 says in black & white that the throw-in is legal if any player touches the ball anywhere after the throw-in you think it only applies to the person actually throwing the ball in? And that somehow 9-2-10 is the real rule we need to consult to understand the big picture?

You think that? Really?? You really think 7-6 relates solely to the guy throwing the ball in? Even though sprinkled liberally thoughout 7-6 are references to other players on both teams?

I think they f'ed it up and have 2 rules that clearly say 2 very different things. Period. And no one's opinion is valid on which rule to follow until they get it un-f'ed up and publish a change.

I would say 2-3 applies but it doesn't. They need to revise 2-3 to include the case where they f'ed it up and anyone's guess is as good as the next guy's.

You are truly wise beyond your years.

He's also wrong, but that's another article for Juulie to write.

Well, that shouldn't bother ol' Scrappy one bit. Nobody will read that article anyway.

yeahbut I can't wait for it to come out on DVD!

Here's what I know. And it's really all I know, pertaining to this play. Not what I think. This is what I know:

The throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched. That happened. So the inbounder did not violate. That much I know. (I don't know about anybody else mentioned in 7-6-1 yet.)

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. But someone WAS out of bounds when he/she touched the throw-in pass. So that someone violated. That much I know. (I don't know if it was the inbounder's teammate or opponent; but that also doesn't matter.)

The penalty for the violation that I know occured is a designated spot throw-in at the spot of the previous throw-in. That much I know.

OK. Let me play this back so we all understand what you are saying.

It doesn't matter if the player who was OOB when he was first to touch the throw-in was a team mate or an opponent. It's just a throw-in violation by rule. And we all know on a violation the *other* team gets the ball. So if B1 touches the ball OOB on a throw-in by A1 team B gets the ball at the original spot.

That's your claim?

Care to defend how an opponent can cause the other team to violate the throw-in? And then cause the player who violated to gain control for *his* team?

The rule doesn’t specify which team can’t do it. When B1 touches the ball with his foot on the line during the throwin, by this rule, he has committed a defensive throw-in violation. The rule that is violated is 9-2-10.
No one is claiming it’s a violation by the thrower; it’s not. It’s a violation, by the receiver, of rule 9-2-10. Therefore, A gets a new throwin, at the original spot (based on rule 9-2-10.) Rule 7-6 hasn’t been violated, so the penalties there aren’t applicable.

Dan -

Not to speak for others, but

1. They're not causing the throwing team to violate - B is violating the throw-in provisions by doing this, and
2. The other part of this is defendable because of the following exerpt from the Rule Book:

9-2 - ...(throw-ins must meet all of these requirements and people can't do all of these things)...
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.

9-2-10 is what we're discussing. The penalty, as Rule 9 is organized and worded, applies to all of section 2.

I don't personally care for it, and I think it's a mistake to have this as a violation of the throw-in by A, when 4-42-5 includes the words "inbounds or out of bounds," and then 9-2-10 is (possibly purposefully) ambiguous in not designating what team the "player" is on that is causing this to be a violation - but in any event, that's how it's defendable.

You're going to have to play it back again, so that I understand wtf you are saying. What you've written in that post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. :confused:

Um, no. I claim to have written all of Shakespeare's sonnets. But that's not really relevant to this thread.

If B1 catches A1's throw-in while B1 is out of bounds, then B1 has committed a violation of 9-2-10 and Team A gets another throw-in from the original throw-in spot. That's my claim. And that's what I've been saying all day.

Um, no. But since I never claimed that, I don't feel compelled to defend it.

What did I miss??

(I haven't quite got the hang of this auto-post thing yet)

It's newsworthy when the Scrapman is wrong?

Ooh, good one! :D

Writing notes in the margins to the cute girl sitting next to you doesn't count.

That's simply because I'm trying to make some sense of what you're saying.

Let's leave it at this:

7-6-1 CLEARLY states any player of either team can touch the ball anywhere on a legal throw-in.

9-2-2 CLEARLY says the same thing (the ball shall be passed to a player of either team in bounds or out of bounds...)

9-2-10 EXACTLY contradicts these 2 rules.

They f'ed it up.

You feel obligated to twist yourself into a pretzel to rationalize their f up..."pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

I'm tired of trying to untwist you in your misguided efforts.

They f'ed it up. You insist on sweeping their mess under the rug. Fine. Enjoy yourself.

I don't want to leave to get popcorn. Will someone share theirs? I don't want any salt...

Lost your temper, didn't ya?

http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation/Gif/ANI26.gif

Scappy wins!:D

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think 7-6-1 is saying that it's legal for B1 to catch the throw-in while standing out of bounds. I think it's saying that the inbounder can't throw the ball out of bounds untouched. That's all.

7-6-1 does not say what you think it's saying.

It doesn't say that at all. You are implying that it is legal for a player to touch the ball anywhere IB or OOB during a throw-in

You guys are reading way too much into this.

7.6.1 - Only describes what makes a legal throw-in, it does not address the issue of what to do if a player who touches it is OOB.

9.2.2 - says the same thing.

9.2.10 - Is the only place where we have a violation. The actions of the thrower were legal as described in 7.6.1 and 9.2.2.

The only place anything is described clearly is 9.2.10:
"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."

And it tells you specifically what to do about it.
Ball to opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

7.6.1 & 9.2.2 tell you what can happen. 9.2.10 tells you what to do if it does happen, not the other way around.

As a professional logician, I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction. Suppose the throw-in is first touched by a player OOB. That meets the test of 7.6.1, but fails the test of 9.2.10.

Just because it's not a violation of one rule does not entail that it's not a violation of another. In my example, the throw-in does not violate the rule requiring the throw-in to be touched by a player before going OOB, but it does violate the rule that prohibits the throw-in first being touched OOB.

FWIW, I disagree with PYRef: this is not a modal claim, but rather two distinct violations that happen to have the same penalty.

Can anyone provide an example that both is and is not a violation of one and the same provision of the rules?

That's what I said. It is not a violation by the thrower under 7.6.1. It is a violation by the toucher OOB under 9.2.10.
Rule 7.6.1 does not make it legal for the player to catch it OOB it only describes the throw-in administration.

No one said otherwise. What's your point?

I fail to see two distinct violations. Legal play by the thrower, illegal play by the receiver OOB.

It's not that complicated.

1. At least one poster maintains that the rules contradict each other. Read the thread before you try to correct me.

2. I did not misspell 'modal'. Look it up.

It was at about this point that the previous thread disintegrated. I think just about all that can be said (at least until FED clears this up, although one side will clain that no cleaning up is needed) has been said.

Disclaimer: Any grammatical or spelling errors in this post have been placed there intentionally to give the various Mr., Mrs. and Ms. AGGs and ASGs something to do.