Those insignificant rules and mechanics and other such minutia

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

What part of 6-3-6, or 6-3-anything does this violate?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The ball has to be touched BY one of the jumpers in order to have a legal jump. Rule 6-3-6. If the ball just touches one of the jumper's body instead, then it's not a legal jump. Your original post very clearly said anyway that both jumpers missed the ball both times. You and your partner were completely right, by rule, to re-jump both times.

6-3-6 ...The tossed ball must be touched by one or both of the jumpers after it reaches its highest point. If the ball contacts the floor without being touched by at least one of the jumpers, the referee shall toss it again.

JR is completely correct. He is making the point that the rule says the jumper must touch the ball for the jump to be legal. This is a positive action by the player. It is not enough for the ball to contact the jumper. That would be a passive action by the player. If the NFHS had wanted the second case to be legal, they would have written "touching or being touched by" as is the case in 4-42-5.
I agree with his point, but still stand by mine that many officials misunderstand this requirement. They wrongly believe that one of the jumpers must contact the ball cleanly when they go up for it.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Lah me, Nevada, I know you were trying to make a point re: what constitutes a legal jump, but you sureasheck are going about it the wrong way. You shoulda thrown in a "what if" to make your point. News and his partner had the right call both times.

Let's go back and look at exactly what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

(Why did your U1 call back either toss? Unless the ball strikes the floor without either jumper touching it, it is a legal toss and the game should continue. Ugly does not equate to illegal.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement. It does not need a "what if."

Lah you.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

6-3-6 ...The tossed ball must be touched by one or both of the jumpers after it reaches its highest point. If the ball contacts the floor without being touched by at least one of the jumpers, the referee shall toss it again.

JR is completely correct. He is making the point that the rule says the jumper must touch the ball for the jump to be legal. This is a positive action by the player. It is not enough for the ball to contact the jumper. That would be a passive action by the player. If the NFHS had wanted the second case to be legal, they would have written "touching or being touched by" as is the case in 4-42-5.

Gotcha. Thank you.

[blindzebra]

So let me get this straight.

Nevada makes a what if post...3rd world play if you prefer...and that is more troublesome, disrupts the thread and forum more so, than the constant "Shut ups," rodents with large sacks, grammar police and all the other non-basketball related nonsense that goes on?

Time to look in the mirror and self-police yourselves for a change, gotta love the hypocrisy.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

So let me get this straight.

Nevada makes a what if post...3rd world play if you prefer...and that is more troublesome, disrupts the thread and forum more so, than the constant "Shut ups," rodents with large sacks, grammar police and all the other non-basketball related nonsense that goes on?

Time to look in the mirror and self-police yourselves for a change, gotta love the hypocrisy.

I got an idea,BZ. Leave all that up to the mods. That's their job. Nobody has appointed you a mod ...or the Moral Policeman of the Forum either as far as I know.

Iffen you don't like it, don't read it. Simple as that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

6-3-6 ...The tossed ball must be touched by one or both of the jumpers after it reaches its highest point. If the ball contacts the floor without being touched by at least one of the jumpers, the referee shall toss it again.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement. It does not need a "what if."

Lah you.

Lah me....

Yes, Nevada, let's go back....

News wrote-- "I'm the 'R' and U1 has to call my first 2 tosses back b/c I out-tossed the the 6'7" and 6'5" jumpers and they completely missed the ball both times."

You wrote-- "Why did your U1 call back either toss? Unless the ball strikes the floor without either jumper touching it, it is a legal toss and the game should continue."

Stevie Wonder could see what was wrong with your statement. News said that both jumpers missed the ball, so they had to re-toss. You basically then also said that if the jumpers didn't touch the ball, it should be re-tossed too. All you did was mimic News. You agreed with him. Why try to "tsk, tsk" him then? That makes no sense.