offense penalized

[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?

[Raymond]

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?

I hope we are not about to have a long discussion about throw-ins and OOB violations.

[d1ref2b]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I hope we are not about to have a long discussion about throw-ins and OOB violations.

Badnews, you do not have to participate, but it does not involved an OOB violation. I can not think of any OOB violation that the defense can commit. They can reach throught the plane, but that doesn't penalize the offense.

What fun would it be if I told you the violation. Give it some more thought. You guys are way smarter than me, and I was able to come up with it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

I can not think of any OOB violation that the defense can commit.

I can. The defense can't go OOB for an unauthorized reason. Violation.

[Adam]

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason? Spot throwin nearest the violation could be in the offensive backcourt.

[d1ref2b]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason? Spot throwin nearest the violation could be in the offensive backcourt.

Wouldn't that be a T and play would resume at POI? Offense not penalized. They get 2 shots and the ball back.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

Wouldn't that be a T and play would resume at POI? Offense not penalized. They get 2 shots and the ball back.

Not under NFHS rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

Wouldn't that be a T and play would resume at POI? Offense not penalized. They get 2 shots and the ball back.

No, leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is a violation under NFHS rules. Failing to return directly and immediately is a T if the player had left the court for an authorized reason. If the defense commits this violation in or near the backcourt while the offense is about to shoot an uncontested layup, and an official blows his whistle to prove he knows the rule, the offense gets penalized.
And single Ts are never POI in NFHS.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

A boundary plane infraction, which results in a warning, is a violation. I don't have my books with me, but I believe it is called this specifically in the rulebook.

[d1ref2b]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

A boundary plane infraction, which results in a warning, is a violation. I don't have my books with me, but I believe it is called this specifically in the rulebook.

I believe you are correct, but is the offense penalized by this defense violation. First is a warning and second is a T.

[deecee]

ths should get good I got my popcorn out and ready to roll...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by d1ref2b

The question is, When and how is the offensive team penalized when the defensive team commits a violation?

The question is, what violation are you talking about?

[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.