A Play I can not find in rules or case... Actually happened.

[Self]

Dick Know is with North Carolina HS. Mary is National and is not Ga. So I don't know why she would only apply to Ga. If Mary is National why wouldn't her ruling be over all governing bodies?

]The problem is that Dick Knox who is also on the Fed rules committee has issued a contradictory interpretation for North Carolina,that now HAS to be followed in North Carolina.Your ruling is only valid in Georgia.There has never been an official ruling issued to the rest of us that will cover our respective areas.IAABO interpretations are not valid in my area,only Fed interpretations,or an interpretation handed down by my local governing body.I have been given neither yet,and I suspect neither has anyone else outside of NC and Georgia.To sum up,we have not yet been given direction on how to handle this call,like you have.Therefore,we can interpret it a different way until we do receive a firm directive. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Jurassic Referee]

Self,if you look in the front of the rule book,you will see that Dick Knox is not only a member of the national Fed rules committee,he is also the chair.The fact that he is from NC has no relevance.The fact that he issued a different interpretation for NC than your interpretation in Georgia is completely relevant.What we have here is the classic "failure to communicate" between 2 members of the Fed rules committee.The bottom line is the Fed has to clear this mess up,so that everyone-everywhere-has a common,approved interpretation.I am certainly not disagreeing with what you've done.You've done a helluva job for your fellow officials in Georgia.No one has done anything for me yet.I don't have a ruling to hang my hat on and the rules don't specifically tell me what to do.That's the point I've been trying to make.

[Oz Referee]

So if I'm a FIBA ref - how do I call it?



Sorry....just HAD to add that bit in.

Along these lines - a directive was issued by FIBA last year instructing us to ignore minor violations in the back court - as long as the defence was not pressing, and there was no clear advantage. A couple of examples were:
1. Lifting pivot foot, before beginning dribble - technically a travel, but can go unpunished.
2. Inbounder having toe on baseline on inbound after a basket.

Keep in mind that a condition of letting either of these go is that the defense is no pressing - and that there is no clear cut advantage/disadvantage.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Self
You Said:
"BTW, the ball is live as soon as it's at the disposal. You don't make it become live illegally by then dribbling or passing it up the floor."

Well tehn as soon as A grabs teh ball through the net it is at his disposal. He can step out of bounds and make a legal throw in or throw it directly to a teammate. Either way he has become the thrower. And by rule teh thower must pass the ball directly into the court or to teammate outside boundary line. Also he cannot be the first to touch on the court. So this would be a violation.

The thrower is the player who attempts to make a throw-in, not a player who grabs the ball when it's at the disposal. I can grab the ball out of the net and toss it to you, while you're OOB. You toss the ball back to me. Now, who's the thrower? In your play, he never stepped out of bounds. Therefore, he isn't a thrower. So by definition, you're incorrect. If you don't believe me, then read the rule book. 4-41-1

JR's already said it but it bears repeating. Dick Knox is not just the deputy director of the NCHSAA. He's the Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. I believe that gives him some say in this mess. The simple fact is that this entire play is not covered by the rules. If you choose to call it a throw-in violation, be my guest. If I'm on the floor, it's a delay of game warning. If he calls tomorrow and tells me to call it a violation, I'll do it. But until then, I'm not.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Great example on the five count, but there's only one problem. In a situation where A wanted the clock to stop and has no timeouts, they can simply throw the ball up-court and get the clock stopped immediately plus have the ball back - sure beats letting 5 run off the clock then having a turnover.

Doesn't hold water Mark because I'm not going to put the time back on the clock that they waste before I issue the delay warning.

[Self]

Your number 2 quote:

"2. Inbounder having toe on baseline on inbound after a basket"

Thats not a violation ever anyway... A line can only be one thing and its the out of bounds line. So toe on base line/side line is never a violation, because the line is out of bounds.

Toe OVER the in line onto the court is a violation. Now you can choose to ignore that if you would like, but its still a violation.

[Self]

I did not know that about Dick Knox. That dooes help. I know this discussion has gone on a long time. I am going to try and talk to someone to see if this can be clarified in the rules or case for next year. I will let you know what I find. Again thanks..

[Oz Referee]

Originally posted by Self

Your number 2 quote:

"2. Inbounder having toe on baseline on inbound after a basket"

Thats not a violation ever anyway... A line can only be one thing and its the out of bounds line. So toe on base line/side line is never a violation, because the line is out of bounds.

Toe OVER the in line onto the court is a violation. Now you can choose to ignore that if you would like, but its still a violation.

Foot ON the line is a violation under FIBA rules. All lines are considered to be of zero thickness, and in practical terms are considered to be part of the area opposite to the one that the ball/player is in.

In other words, if a player is inbounding - then the line is part of the playing area, and therefor cannot be touched on a throwin.

However, if the player is dribbling the ball up the court and stands on (but not over) the line, the line is OOB.

Confused? It is actually pretty easy to officiate with this rule.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am going to bore the dickens out of most of you but I am going to review my earlier postings on this subject. I also reviewed the NCAA Rules Book and Casebook Plays and the FIBA Rules Book and Casebook Plays, and it is my oppinion that all three sets of rules are the same for this play. So I will reference this posting using NFHS Rules.

On Dec. 08th, I posted the following:

R6-S1-A2b: The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower-in. After a goal (field goal or free-throw) is scored, the ball becomes live when the thrower-in steps out of bounds with the ball in his possession. The ball also becomes live in this situation when the ball sits on the floor and no one from the team eligible to make the throw-in makes any attempt to pick up the ball and make a throw-in or when a player from the team eligible to make the throw-in holds the ball inbounds and makes no attempt to start the throw-in; in these two cases the administering official can start a five second count when the throwing team fails to start the throw-in. In the second case if the player in possession of the ball throws the ball to a teammate as described in the posted play, then the team eligible to make the throw-in has committed a throw-in violation.

Why is this a throw-in violation? R7-S6-A3 and R9-S2-A11, say so. These two rules references say the same thing. They refer to the thrower being inbounds before releasing the ball on a pass.

The fact that the thrower threw the ball in a throw-in like manner (it is the best description I can come up with) is an indication of the player’s intent to make a throw-in. This violates R7-S6-A3 and R9-S2-A11. At no time does the delay of game warning can be applied to this play. It is just a simple throw-in violation by the team eligible to make the throw-in. At no time can a delay of game warning ever be made. This situation is not one of the three delay of game situations that require a warning. There is no rule support for a delay of game warning. If a team is constantly making this kind of throw-in violation, just keep calling the violation. If the team is careless enough to continuously not pay attention to where the boundary line is it deserves to be called for the violation. Eventually the team will get its act together or the coach will get players in the game that will do it correctly. This is not a situation that calls for a technical foul for continuously commiting the same violation. It is just poor play by the team involved.

On Dec. 09th, I posted the following:

You cannot issue a delay of game warning because:

1) The ball becoming live was not delayed.

2) The posted play is not has not a single thing to do with three delay of game warning situations listed in the NFHS Rules. And these warnings are found in NFHS R4-S46-A1, A2, and A3.

S46: A warning to a team for delay is an administrative
procedure by an official which is recorded in the score-
book by the scorer and reported to the coach:

A1: For throw-in plane violations as in R9-S2-A11.

A2: For huddle by either team and contact with the free
thrower, as in R10-S1-A5c.

A3: For interfering with the ball following a goal as
in R10-S1-A5d.

R9-S2-A11: A player shall not violate the following pro-
visions of the throw-in. Furthermore: The opponents(s)
of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person
through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line
plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in
pass.

NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided
he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the
ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent
in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.
See penalty.

This is why you do not issue a delay of game warning for the throw-in violation by the team making the throw-in. I have to believe, that if Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox are saying that a delay of game warning as part of the posted play, they did not understand the play. The delay cannot be issued for the posted play because it just is not covered by R4-S46.

As I have stated previously, do NOT issue a delay of game warning under R4-S46, the rule does not support such action.

The following was not in my Dec. 09th posting. The delay of game warnings listed above are for games played under NFHS Rules, there are no such rules in NCAA and FIBA rules.

On a more practical note, how this play is handled is determined by a combination of the skill and level of the players. I will not get into a discussion of this here because I admit to having been guilty of treating this as a do over from time to time based on the criteria that I just stated. But before we can decided to being practical on the court, we have to understand the rule and why it is a violation.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Oz Referee


Foot ON the line is a violation under FIBA rules. All lines are considered to be of zero thickness, and in practical terms are considered to be part of the area opposite to the one that the ball/player is in.

In other words, if a player is inbounding - then the line is part of the playing area, and therefor cannot be touched on a throwin.

Duane, you're correct. When you say that a player has a foot on the line, most of these guys think the the line is 2" or more in width. They don't understand that when you say line is the edge that separates inbounds and OOB. If a player is touching the actual boundary line with his foot, he's inbounds as well as OOB. It is a violation.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Duane, you're correct. When you say that a player has a foot on the line, most of these guys think the the line is 2" or more in width. They don't understand that when you say line is the edge that separates inbounds and OOB. If a player is touching the actual boundary line with his foot, he's inbounds as well as OOB. It is a violation.

Are you trying to say that in NFHS rules a player cannot have his foot on the 2" line, even if no part of his foot is over the court?

[BktBallRef]

The boundary line is the inside edge of the 2" line. The line has no width, as it is where inbounds and OOB meet. It's not possible to step on the boundary line without stepping inbounds. It is possible to step on the 2" line without being inbounds.

[Mark Dexter]

Gotcha.

I should know better than to read posts at 12:00 in the morning.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am going to bore the dickens out of most of you but I am going to review my earlier postings on this subject.

Mark,we finally agree on something.You DID bore the dickens out of most of us!

[Self]

I know only a little of FIBA rules, but I do Know HS rules. What most of these guys think is: Tne 2 inch minimum that is painted is the line. To say the inside side edge of the line is the boundaary line and that is a mm in thickness is what confuses most people. Much easier to say the painted line is OB and you can touch any part of the painted line on a throw in. You just can't touch the court. The rule 1-2 even refernece the sideline and endline as minumum 2 inch widths. So following that verbage, the entire 2 inch minimum line is OB.

Most importantly: That is what is differnet in HS than FIBA rules. HS rules you can use that 2 inche portion if you are OB. FIBA you can't.. The rule is not the same..

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Duane, you're correct. When you say that a player has a foot on the line, most of these guys think the the line is 2" or more in width. They don't understand that when you say line is the edge that separates inbounds and OOB. If a player is touching the actual boundary line with his foot, he's inbounds as well as OOB. It is a violation.