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

[bob jenkins]

I think Self indicated that he asked RefMag for an opinion on this issue. I found this in my archives (I knew it was there, just took awhile to find the right spot).

From the "Ask Us" column, December 1999 (I won't quote the situation -- it's the same as we've been discussing):

Ruling: Yes, that is a dificult situation in youth ball, as well as in most any high school or college game. There really isn't any specific rule coverage for that dilemna. An official has several options based on good judgment more than anything else.

IT can be ruled a delay of game technical foul for preventing the ball to be put in play promptly (most severe); a throw-in violation could be ruled for being inbounds before releasing the throw-in (somewhat more reasonable), or whistling the ball dead immediately and awarding the ball back to team A for a throw-in (probably the most prudent, especially in youth ball). It's not often you get these options, but any of these will work. (Fed 10-1-5b, 9-2-2; NCAA 10-2a;9-4b)

[Self]

Now I guess I am more confused..haha. Actually as BktBllRef stated (Not that I doubted you just wanted to discuss what I have heard elsewhere), Mr. Knox rules this a delay of game warning per rule 5-46-3, for interfering with the ball following a goal. As in 10-1-5b, Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play. He states no where in the rule does it say this applies to only the new defense. It applies to either team. Also his reasoning for it not being a throw-in violation is the throw-in has not begun until the player steps out of bounds.

So now I see both ways.. Violation or Delay of Game warning. I can justify either one by using the rules previously listed. I guess it depends on what kind of mood I am in...haha... I truly believe there is no clear cut answer and I brought this up to him. He agreed and could see teh other sides reasoning as well. He appreciated this and made note to discuss at future meeting. Maybe adding this play to case so there is a definitive ruling one way or the other. Well we shall see....

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Self
Now I guess I am more confused..haha. Actually as BktBllRef stated (Not that I doubted you just wanted to discuss what I have heard elsewhere), Mr. Knox rules this a delay of game warning per rule 5-46-3, for interfering with the ball following a goal. As in 10-1-5b, Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play. He states no where in the rule does it say this applies to only the new defense. It applies to either team. Also his reasoning for it not being a throw-in violation is the throw-in has not begun until the player steps out of bounds.

So now I see both ways.. Violation or Delay of Game warning. I can justify either one by using the rules previously listed. I guess it depends on what kind of mood I am in...haha... I truly believe there is no clear cut answer and I brought this up to him. He agreed and could see teh other sides reasoning as well. He appreciated this and made note to discuss at future meeting. Maybe adding this play to case so there is a definitive ruling one way or the other. Well we shall see....

NO, NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am leaving to officiate a game, so I will email Dick Knox this weekend, BUT Dick Knox is ABSOLUTELY WRONG about applying NFHS R4-S46-A3, to this play. That rule a prohibition against the team that just scored. If Team A has just scored, it is impossible for Team B to be guilty of violation R4-S46-A3 because Team B is entitled to make the throw-in. R4-S46-A3 is to keep Team A from allowing Team B from securing the ball for a throw-in in a timely manner.

Furthermore, I think that Referee Magazine was really stretching to imply that NFHS R10-S1-A5b for delay of game by preventing the ball from becoming promptly alive. I cannot fathom an instance when an official would apply this rule to the posted play. To use R10-S1-A5b is like using a nuclear warhead to kill a fly.

[BktBallRef]

There's a big grin on my face!!!

I'm sure glad he stuck with his original intepretation!

Mark, what's the point? Let it go! There are much more important things going on. Besides that, you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing him. I doubt vey seriously he's concerned about what an official in Ohio thinks of his interpretation. No offense intended.

Originally posted by Self
I know only a little of FIBA rules, but I do Know HS rules. What most of these guys think is: The 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..

Thanks! That's what I was attempting to explain to Duane but I really wasn't familiar with the FIBA interp.

[Self]

I am currently waiting for one more response and that is Dr. Ralph Swearngin Executive Committe Ga HSA. He is over Basketball and oficials for the stage of Ga. When I receive his response I have prepared an email that I will be sending to all the heads that have responded with these official answers and wait an see what they do at that point. Maybe it will help and get something added for next year.

I can see the points by both sides;

Violation: While many rules have been referenced, none officially say the throwin begins when they thrower throws the ball. Most imply that you have to be out of bounds first to initiate the throw in. So then this is why people say it cannot be a violation since player never went out of bounds.

Delay warning: Unless someone can find differently no where does it say these warning that were referenced by Mr. Knox apply only to the new defensive team.

A few still would begin the 5 second count and also a few would just reset the throw in.

I believe it is definitely a violation or a delay warning. I have been swayed. Dick Knox presented a good case. Either way it needs to be clarified better. Not sure what I would call now... Still pondering...

[BktBallRef]

Self, you started this mess. It's only fair that you should do the leg work.

Have a good game!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Self
I am currently waiting for one more response and that is Dr. Ralph Swearngin Executive Committe Ga HSA. He is over Basketball and oficials for the stage of Ga. When I receive his response I have prepared an email that I will be sending to all the heads that have responded with these official answers and wait an see what they do at that point. Maybe it will help and get something added for next year.

I can see the points by both sides;

Violation: While many rules have been referenced, none officially say the throwin begins when they thrower throws the ball. Most imply that you have to be out of bounds first to initiate the throw in. So then this is why people say it cannot be a violation since player never went out of bounds.

Delay warning: Unless someone can find differently no where does it say these warning that were referenced by Mr. Knox apply only to the new defensive team.

A few still would begin the 5 second count and also a few would just reset the throw in.

I believe it is definitely a violation or a delay warning. I have been swayed. Dick Knox presented a good case. Either way it needs to be clarified better. Not sure what I would call now... Still pondering...

When the NFHS added R4-S46-A3 to the rules, I heard Dick Schindler speak on this rule change when it first appeared in the Rules Book. And at no time was the offense ever mentioned as being able to violate this rule. The history of behind this rule change is that it is meant to be applied to the team that just scored. The rational for the rule change was that Team A would score and then would touch the ball in such a manner that would delay Team B's ability to inbounds the ball in a timely manner. Some officials would issue "unofficial" warning after "unofficial" warning, some officials would charge the offending player on Team A with a technical foul for delay of game. The NFHS Rules Committee finally addressed the problem and made it one of the three situations where the officials are required to give on official warning for delay of game for the first infraction and then charge the team with a technical foul for each infraction after that. Every casebook play addresses infractions of R4-S46-A3 as being made by the team having just scored. There is no historical basis for NFHS R4-S46-A3 to be applied to the team making the throw-in after being scored upon.

I have respect for Mr. Knox's position as Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee, but he is wrong in this case.

[Self]

Ray McClure Director Nationally Recognized 5***** Basketball Referee Course:

Ray rules this a throw-in violation and references rule 7-5-7. Key words being "The team not credited with the score SHALL make a throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made from any point OUTSIDE the end line.

He says SHALL meaing they will, its not a request... from OUTSIDE the end line, this was not done.

[Self]

This was the last response I was waiting on.. I will send my email and copy this board...


Your research is right on target. A year or two ago this issue arose and we were assured that something would go into the case book, but I guess it fell through the cracks. I will send an email to the National Federation today reminding them of this issue.

My interpretation is that, on the first occurrence, you have no violation. Sound the whistle and bring the ball back for a legitimate throw-in. If it occurs again, it would seem to be more than an accident. A warning to the team for delay of game would be appropriate under the provision for the official to impose penalties not specified by rule.
Ralph Swearngin

[BktBallRef]

Ralph sounds like a smart man!

Tell him to give Dick a call. Maybe between the 2 of them, they can get this added for next year!

[bigwhistle]

IMHO....

If Mark was from the South, he would still be trying to convince us that Granny was right, and that the war is still not over!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Ralph sounds like a smart man!

Tell him to give Dick a call. Maybe between the 2 of them, they can get this added for next year!

Now comes the post from Mark T. DeNucci Sr. telling us that Ralph is WRONG,WRONG,WRONG too.This will be followed by a 10,000 word explanation why Ralph was WRONG,WRONG,WRONG!The thing to remember though is that this ruling is still subject to change when the Fed rules committee meets.At least Georgia and NC have uniformity now.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
If Mark was from the South, ...

Perish the thought!

[Self]

If I had to bet I would say if they actually discuss this and it appears that they will. I think they are probably going to make it a violation. The email from Ray McClure quoting rule 7-5-7.." After a made basket the team scored upon "SHALL" make a throw-in from the endline "OUTSIDE" the end line" Is so close to what happen that they probably will have a case and use that rule. The word "shall" is what they should do and they didn't do it. Its the key word. I am not so sure it doesn't address it now. Its just not totally clear, obviously....

As long as they clarify I have no problem going violation or warning... Just clarify it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Self


As long as they clarify I have no problem going violation or warning... Just clarify it.

Exactly,Self,Exactly!I personally like the warning,but the main issue is to have a ruling we can all follow.Btw,you did a lot of work on this.Good job!