Rule Relapse - Please Help

HawkeyeCubP · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 03:29pm

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?

iref4him · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 03:46pm

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.

bob jenkins · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 04:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by iref4him

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.

Jurassic Referee · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 04:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by iref4him

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.

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.

Rusty Gilbert · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 04:16pm

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.

HawkeyeCubP · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 05:11pm

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?

Adam · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 05:32pm

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

refnrev · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 05:38pm

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.

Texas Aggie · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 10:14pm

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.

ncump7 · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Dec 13, 2006, 11:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

Nevadaref · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 14, 2006, 05:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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?

Please read this entire thread:

Where is the Throw-in?

Scrapper1 · #12 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 14, 2006, 09:38am

Quote:

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.

Ref Daddy · #13 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 14, 2006, 10:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

Scrapper1 · #14 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 14, 2006, 10:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ref Daddy

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

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

Jurassic Referee · #15 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 14, 2006, 10:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.