offense penalized

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Hm... Comment says, "temporarily ignored", but the word "temporarily" doesn't appear in the ruling.

That's because there was only 4 seconds left in the period.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

Must be player control foul by airborne shooter and then there is basket interference or goaltending by defense.

But in that case, offense is penalized for what offense did, not what defense did.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Kick ball during an end-line throwin when the ensuing throwin spot is on the sideline rather than the endline.

How is the offense being penalized? They're gaining floor position up-court. That's exactly why you don't bring the ball back to the end line....so you're not penalizing the offense.

[deecee]

if i could run the endline I would rather have that luxury -- depending how far up the sideline i was going

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Hm... Comment says, "temporarily ignored", but the word "temporarily" doesn't appear in the ruling.

So if offense went down and shot just after the defender stepped out to try to stop the play, but offense missed the shot, but rebounded, would you keep delaying the violation penalty? Wait until B rebounds or steals and then call it?

Again, right out of the COMMENT, you call the delayed violation if time is not a factor. If the clock is gonna run out anyway, fuggedaboutit. Calling it as the clock runs out means that the call has no meaning anyway.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How is the offense being penalized? They're gaining floor position up-court. That's exactly why you don't bring the ball back to the end line....so you're not penalizing the offense.

You're right; it's a tactical question, though. Some coaches would prefer to run the endline than to get a spot throwin 7 feet closer to home.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Again, right out of the COMMENT, you call the delayed violation if time is not a factor. If the clock is gonna run out anyway, fuggedaboutit. Calling it as the clock runs out means that the call has no meaning anyway.

Okay, that makes sense. So how long do you wait to call it?

[d1ref2b]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

Came a cross an interesting sitution during a rules discussion with a fellow HS official. I was applying NCAA rules and he pointed out that NFHS is different in this case. The question is, When and how is the offensive team penalized when the defensive team commits a violation?

OK. Here is exactly how I worded it to the FHSAA and NFHS. Sorry it is rather wordy. But when dealing with the FHSAA it pays to be thorough as they are not exactly rules people.

I believe there is contradiction between rules 4.42 art. 5, Rule 9-4, and Rule 6-4 art. 5. (NFHS) I think that this conflict can be resolved with a simple modification of rule 4.42, art. 5.



NFHS Rule 4.42 art 5 states that, “the throw in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, another player who is either in bounds or out of bounds.” Rule 9-4 states that a player shall not intentionally kick the ball as in Rule 4-29. Rule 6-4, art. 5 states that the opportunity to make an AP throw in is lost if the throw in team violates, but does not lose the AP arrow if either team fouls. The key word in Rule 4-42, art. 5 is “touches”. Even though an intentional kick is considered illegal (and a violation), it is still touched when kicked and the team making the AP throw in would lose the arrow because of the “illegal” touch by the defensive team.



I think that rule 4.42 art. 5 needs to be amended and the phrase, “legally touched”, should be added to the rule. Below I have provided a scenario describing the rule as written and the same play with the rule changed. No case book play could be found pertaining to this play.



Applied as currently written:

Team A is awarded a throw in as a result of an AP situation. The throw in is made by Team A, but is intentionally kicked by Team B. Rule 9-4 defines a kick as a violation, if intentional, but a kick is still a touch. Therefore, Team A is now awarded a second throw in because of the kicked ball violation by Team B, and Team A subsequently loses the AP arrow because Team B committed a violation by kicking the throw in, but they touched the ball as required by Rule 4.42 art. 5., therefore ending the throw in and having the AP arrow switched to the direction of Team B. Ultimately, Team B committed a violation and was rewarded for that. Under no other situations is a team rewarded because they committed a violation of any kind.



Applied as revised:

Team A is awarded a throw in as a result of an AP situation. The throw in is made by Team A, but is intentionally kicked by Team B. Because the ball was not “legally” touched by a player that was inbounds or out of bounds, the AP throw in did not end. Team A would then be awarded a throw in as a result of the kicking violation by Team B, and would not lose the arrow since they did not commit a violation, as references in Rule 6-4, art 5. The AP arrow will stay pointed towards Team A’s basket, giving Team A the opportunity to make the next AP throw in.

Not only does this change remove any contradiction among the three rules referenced, but also creates consistency between the NFHS rules and the NCAA rules.

This happened last year in the womens NCAA tourney. UT v UNC.

Thanks for all of the input

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

OK. Here is exactly how I worded it to the FHSAA and NFHS. Sorry it is rather wordy. But when dealing with the FHSAA it pays to be thorough as they are not exactly rules people.

I believe there is contradiction between rules 4.42 art. 5, Rule 9-4, and Rule 6-4 art. 5. (NFHS) I think that this conflict can be resolved with a simple modification of rule 4.42, art. 5.



NFHS Rule 4.42 art 5 states that, “the throw in ends when the passed ball touches, or is touched by, another player who is either in bounds or out of bounds.” Rule 9-4 states that a player shall not intentionally kick the ball as in Rule 4-29. Rule 6-4, art. 5 states that the opportunity to make an AP throw in is lost if the throw in team violates, but does not lose the AP arrow if either team fouls. The key word in Rule 4-42, art. 5 is “touches”. Even though an intentional kick is considered illegal (and a violation), it is still touched when kicked and the team making the AP throw in would lose the arrow because of the “illegal” touch by the defensive team.



I think that rule 4.42 art. 5 needs to be amended and the phrase, “legally touched”, should be added to the rule. Below I have provided a scenario describing the rule as written and the same play with the rule changed. No case book play could be found pertaining to this play.



Applied as currently written:

Team A is awarded a throw in as a result of an AP situation. The throw in is made by Team A, but is intentionally kicked by Team B. Rule 9-4 defines a kick as a violation, if intentional, but a kick is still a touch. Therefore, Team A is now awarded a second throw in because of the kicked ball violation by Team B, and Team A subsequently loses the AP arrow because Team B committed a violation by kicking the throw in, but they touched the ball as required by Rule 4.42 art. 5., therefore ending the throw in and having the AP arrow switched to the direction of Team B. Ultimately, Team B committed a violation and was rewarded for that. Under no other situations is a team rewarded because they committed a violation of any kind.



Applied as revised:

Team A is awarded a throw in as a result of an AP situation. The throw in is made by Team A, but is intentionally kicked by Team B. Because the ball was not “legally” touched by a player that was inbounds or out of bounds, the AP throw in did not end. Team A would then be awarded a throw in as a result of the kicking violation by Team B, and would not lose the arrow since they did not commit a violation, as references in Rule 6-4, art 5. The AP arrow will stay pointed towards Team A’s basket, giving Team A the opportunity to make the next AP throw in.

Not only does this change remove any contradiction among the three rules referenced, but also creates consistency between the NFHS rules and the NCAA rules.

This happened last year in the womens NCAA tourney. UT v UNC.

Thanks for all of the input

We already discussed the heck out of this sitch. Some one find the link...

[d1ref2b]

My apologies then. Would have thought someone would have gotten it correct then or at least contacted the NFHS to fix the rule as written.

[Adam]

A is not entitled to a successful throwin from the arrow, only the opportunity. I think the rule should be amended to change the arrow once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower. As it is, the offense is not penalized. They already got the ball due to the arrow, are you suggesting that the defense should be penalized more for kicking the ball during an AP throwin than they are during a normal throwin?

[d1ref2b]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A is not entitled to a successful throwin from the arrow, only the opportunity. I think the rule should be amended to change the arrow once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower. As it is, the offense is not penalized. They already got the ball due to the arrow, are you suggesting that the defense should be penalized more for kicking the ball during an AP throwin than they are during a normal throwin?

No, the defense is penalized for committing a kicked ball violation as would be in the NCAA. Team A now gets a throw in for the kicking violation. I just am seeking comsistency between the 2 sets of rules. Team A can not lose the arrow unless they violate. Why should they lose the arrow if team B violates (kicks the ball).

[cmathews]

so you are saying that A will now have the opportunity to complete the throw in, and retain the arrow????? or would you have them switch the arrow after the "legally" completed throw in

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

No, the defense is penalized for committing a kicked ball violation as would be in the NCAA. Team A now gets a throw in for the kicking violation. I just am seeking comsistency between the 2 sets of rules. Team A can not lose the arrow unless they violate. Why should they lose the arrow if team B violates (kicks the ball).

It depends on your definition of completing a throw-in. I agree with you d1ref2b (I like that moniker, btw). but others feel that when B touches the ball whether legally or illegally, the throw-in is completed and the arrow given up. whether it is a kick or a hand touch is irrelevant in these people's eyes. That's not my opinion, btw, I'm just expressing what I"ve heard before.

And in their argurement you should also note that if B touches it with their hand, and swats it oob, they've violated by causing the ball to go out of bounds. So in that case, A loses the arrow on a B violation by your and my thinking. But that other thought process figures that the throw-in was complete when the ball was touched either legally or illegally, so A gives up the arrow.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

Came a cross an interesting sitution during a rules discussion with a fellow HS official. I was applying NCAA rules and he pointed out that NFHS is different in this case. The question is, When and how is the offensive team penalized when the defensive team commits a violation?

You are loosing your audience.