I am hearing so many different responses to the below situation from HS officials, college officials, and rules interpreters, and I want to get the call right.

A1 scores a basket, as the ball goes through the net B1 grabs the ball and immediately passes it up court to a fastbreaking teammate. The problem is B1 has never stepped out of bounds. Both feet remained inbounds.....

The answers I have gotten are these:

1.) It is nothing, you blow your whistle and reset the throw in with B1 out of bounds. ( This seems strange since it could occur more than once and it seems there would be a procedure to handle this.)

2.) You immediately start your 5 second count since the ball is at the disposal of B1. Then you could have a 5 second count if they do not bring the ball back and throw it in correctly. ( The problem I see with this is alot can happen in that 5 second count, they could actually score quickly or a foul could be committed, it could really make the game messy.)

3.) You blow your whistle and reset the throw in for B and issue B a delay of game warning for boundary violation. ( Not sure this warning covers this.)

4.) It is a throw in violation. The ball was at B1's disposal, to make a legal throw in the player must be out of bounds, since B1 attempted a throw in it without going out of bounds it is a violation. ( The problem I am being told on this is that there is no rule or case that covers this directly and since B1 never stepped out of bounds the throw in did not begin, there for it cannot be a throw in violation.

I have looked all through the rule and case book and cannot find anything that covers this directly. Please let me know how this situation should be handled and what rule or case we use for it. ........ Thanks...

I have used both 1 and 4 and I have also just used my voice to say "Bring it back." They do. Usually when this does happen it is some 7th gradder who doesn't think with the ball or doesn't know what he is doing. Your right, there should be a case for this.

I say this is a violation. The throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal of the inbounder (4-41-3). Once the throw-in starts, you could get A1 for a few different violations:

9-2-11 Note seems strongest: "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."

9-2-5: Player shall not carry the ball onto the court.

At the high school level (or above) or at a middle school competitive level, I always go with your option 2. Whatever happens during the 5 seconds happens and I deal with it.

Middle school rec I usually just call them back and tell them to inbound properly, unless I have to do it repeatedly, then I warn the coach once and then use your procedure 2. I think that's the only one you can specifically justify with the rules.

We've discussed this one every year for the past 3 years.

Option #1 - This is what I would do in a lower level game.

Option #2 - I agree. Too much can happen and I'm not going to let it happen and then have to clean it up.

Option #3 - At the varsity level this is what I would do and what I was told to do by Dick Knox. Some will argue that they have 5 seconds. Well, they have 5 seconds to inbound the ball but clearly, they have no intention of doing so. Delay of game warning works for me.

Option #4 - I'm not going there. :)

JMO, which is all any of us can express since it's not addressed in the books!

There was a thread on this a while ago, maybe on the "other"
discussion board. Frankly, I don't recall what the
consensus was although I seem to remember someone getting a
NF ruling that looked like your #3...or maybe you go right
to the T without the warning. Anyway, I would blow my
whistle & bring them back for a proper throw-in, as in your
#1

#3 was the ruling that I got from Dick Knox.

How is this a delay of game warning for a boundary violation. Boundary violations are committed by the defense.

Mr. Knox said to issue a delay of game warning. I was not referring to the boundary portion of #3. Sorry for the confusion.

i agree with number 3(if it is very blatant). bring it back and give a delay of game warning to that team. on rare cases does it happen again. but if it is 1 foot in 1 foot out(honest mistake) i would blow whistle immediatley and reset without any warning.

Would 9-2-6 cover it
 

I found this one and thought it might cover it... " The thrower shall not touch the ball in the court before it touches or is touched by another player". If he grabs the ball through the net and throws to a teammate without going out of bounds isn't this exactly what he did. touch the ball in bounds before it touches another player... A violation..

As far as what Crew said one foot in one foot out "an honest mistake". That would definitely have to be a violation.

Re: Would 9-2-6 cover it
 

No. This is addressing an OOB thrower who inbounds the ball and touches it prior to an inbound player touching it.

Rules does not say OOB thrower..
 

The rule says the thrower shall not do the following. Says nothing in that item that says OOB. Other articles refer to OOB but those cover there particular areas. Since the throw in starts when the ball is at the disposal of the player. When he attempt to throw the ball to the teammate he becomes the thrower. So he is the firsat to touch it inbounds.

The problem is nothing is addressing this particular situation in the rules or case book. We are not getting any consistant answer on how to handle this situation. It should be the same at sub-varsity as in Varsity.

I lean toward a violation, since the player is attempting an illegal throw in. I emailed Peter Webb to see if he can help clear this up.

Why not reset throw-in and warn team for delay of game.
Rule 10, Art. 5b.....Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made proptly live or from being put in play.

I don't really think so
 

That is not one of the 3 warnings that are covered by the rules. 10-1-5B covers delay but it is used after timeouts or for free throws. It also would result in a Technical.

I emailed referee magazine also..
 

I send this to refereee magazine also to see if they have a reply.

Re: I don't really think so
 

Right -- it's not one of the three official / required warnings.

But, we give "warnings" for other items all the time -- "Coach, I need to to stay in your box." "Coach, that's enough." "Hands off." "Move out of the lane."

and, ...

"Be sure to go out of bounds on the throw-in, or it will be a delay T."

(Of course, your wording may differ.)

Re: Re: I don't really think so
 

I agree that our wording may differ, but I don't ever recall desiring to stay in the coaches box. I prefer to get away from that area. ;)

Think you are making too much of a simple call. It's a throw in violation. Blow whistle as soon as players start down the court.
Thrower has to be behind the line to be legal. That's all you need to tell coach.

Why are there officials still insisting to reset the throw-in and then issuing a delay of game warning. I am not going to debate at this point whether reseting the throw-in is correct or not, BUT, in the NFHS Rules there are only three delay of game warning situations and this play is not one of them. What did the team do to get a delay of game warning. The team cannot even be T'ed for causing a delay in the ball becoming alive. So forget this delay of game warning horse manure. It does NOT belong in this play.

Because that's what I've been told to do.

Mark, there is no right answer in this case. It's not addressed in the rule book or case book.

But I beg to differ that the ball is live. By definition, it may be. But there's absolutely nothing that can be legally done with the ball when it's at the other end of the court and hasn't been inbounded properly.

As for those of us in NC, Dick Knox has instructed us to stop the silliness and issue a delay of game warning. And that's what we'll do until the NF addresses this situation.

BTW, you're so big on telling us why we're all wrong, why don't you tell us the proper way to handle it?

Let's hold on a second here Don. The player has 5 seconds
to get OOB behind the endline & throw the ball in. There is
no rule that supports a violation until those 5 seconds have
elapsed. The problem is that in those 5 seconds anything
can happen, including a basket or a quick steal & basket.
You have got to do something to fix this sitch immediately
or just let it go. I choose to blow the ball dead & get
the throw-in done right. There is nothing in the rules or
case book supporting this, but Tony does claim to have a
NC state interpretation. That's good for Tony but I'm in
NY, not NC.

I agree with Dan. This is definitely not a throw-in violation. If we didn't have an official interpretation from the NCHSAA office, I would give a little whistle and do it right.

Quote:

That's good for Tony but I'm in NY, not NC.

I hope things look up for you soon! ;)

The ANSWER FROM IAABO .....
 

The below answer is the answer I received from IAABO when I emailed them.....

Answer #4 on your e-mail is correct. It is a throw-in violation except the ball is not at B-1'disposal until the official actually starts counting. But with this play situation it is not relevant. Because B-1 did not step out of bounds as the rule states, is precisely why it is a throw-in violation. This is a throw-in violation not a technical foul initially. It is the responsibility of the team that has been scored upon to make a bona fide attempt to get the ball and go directly and immediately out of bounds without undue delay and release the ball within 5 seconds on a pass directly into the court so it touches or touched by a player inbounds or out of bounds. This is basic and fundamental to the throw-in rule. When B-1 failed
to take the ball out of bounds, B-1 violated this basic and fundamental rule. Rule 7 Section 6 Art 1; Rule 9 Section 2 Art 2 cover the rule interpretation. It would be considered good officiating technique for the official after this occurred to issue a warning that if the team persist in such tactics a technical foul would be assessed.

Hope this clears up the situation for you.

Re: The ANSWER FROM IAABO .....
 

Thanks, it does. If the IAABO says it's a throw-in violation, then I know that it's a delay of game warning! :D

bktball ref-this is one situation that we are finally on the same page. mark, your in rome, we are the romans, do as we do! (note the sarcasm on the rome thing)

Re: The ANSWER FROM IAABO .....
 

Crew,just to clear something up for you.Rulings from IAABO are not approved rulings.Approved rulings have to come from Fed(NFHS),who issue the rules,or from the state representatives of the NFHS(such as BBRef's case).IAABO is a separate organization for basketball officials that use NFHS rules.IAABO has no power to issue or amend rules.Rulings from IAABO may be 100% correct,or may also be wrong by Fed interpretation.I believe that some states do use IAABO boards as their licensing bodies,but they certainly do not cover all areas.I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Re: The ANSWER FROM IAABO .....
 

Let me correct a perception about IAABO. IAABO uses only NFHS or NCAA interpretations. Its philosophy is one rule, one interpretation. An interpretation from an IAABO interpreter is one that has been carefully researched and based upon NFHS or NCAA interpretations. IAABO has members that sit on the NFHS Rules Committee and works closely with the NFHS on rules and mechanics.

Regarding the orginal posted play. This is a throw-in violation based on Answer #4 above. And I will continue to REPEAT MYSELF (sorry Mr. Knox, you are wrong on this point), this is not a delay of game warning situation, nor is it ever a technical foul for delay of game. Whenever the situation in the original posted play occurs a throw-in violation has occured. Just blow the whistle and go the other way. Case closed. Easy play. No muss, no fuss. After a few times the offended team is going to get the point and take more care in how it inbounds the ball after its opponent scores.

And yes I am a member of IAABO (member: Visualization and Education Committee).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: That's good for Tony but I'm in NY, not NC. I hope things look up for you soon! ;)

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Very funny. :p

Re: Re: Re: The ANSWER FROM IAABO .....
 

So,we have a sitch here where the Fed and IAABO have issued conflicting interpretations.As Mr. Knox is a member of the Fed rules committee,try to guess where Tony's butt is if he doesn't follow the Fed interpretation,whether he agrees with it or not.

NFHS Rules examiner
 

Waiting to hear back from NFHS on this question. I emailed tem along with IAABO answer. I will post as soon as I receive.

when you guys say tony is that me or someoneelse, i am confused?
what is iaabo anyway?

The often-referenced Tony is BktBallRef; who only has 1493 posts to date.... Geee, a mere 1441 more posts and you will be as proliferic as BktBallRef.:D

Iaabo is the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials.... Well, check it out for yourself: http://www.iaabo.org/

IAABO stands for "I Am A Blind Official." The other acronym in common use is the international basketball entity known as "FEEBLE".

NFHS agrees with IAABO
 

The below person who responded to my email has agreed with the IAABO answer. I have now forwarded it to Ga. To see if we have a consensus.

All interpretations for high school basketball should be run through the Georgia state association.Â* However, I do agree with the interpretation below (#4), but you may want to contact the basketball liaison at the Georgia office for their official interpretation.

Mary Struckhoff
Assistant Director - Basketball Editor/National Interpreter
National High School Federation

NFHS agrees with IAABO
 

The below person who responded to my email has agreed with the IAABO answer. I have now forwarded it to Ga. To see if we have a consensus.

All interpretations for high school basketball should be run through the Georgia state association. However, I do agree with the interpretation below (#4), but you may want to contact the basketball liaison at the Georgia office for their official interpretation.

Mary Struckhoff
Assistant Director - Basketball Editor/National Interpreter
National High School Federation

Posting it twice doesn't make it anymore correct or incorrect. :p

As you can see from Mary's email, she welcomes an interpretation for the state association in these situations. Doesn't sound like a consensus to me. It's simply not covered. Maybe we'll see a case play next year.

You are correct, but I will have the State answer next week.
 

I agree that it should be covered in the case or rules exactly. But there it plenty enough verbage for me to feel comfortable with a violation.

Let me see if I got this straight now:
1)In North Carolina,the official Fed ruling is to issue B with a "delay-of-game"warning,and then give B their throw-in with no violation called.
2)IAABO and Mary Struckhoff(Fed national interpreter) say that it is a throw-in violation by B,followed by a "delay-of-game"warning to B-unless Georgia thinks it's different.
3)Mark T. DeNucci Sr. of IAABO fame says that it is a throw-in violation with no delay-of-game warning ever.
4)We're waiting to hear from Georgia.
The sad part is that Crew ended up right-quote-"your in rome,we are the romans,do as we do"-unquote.

Actually, I think #1 comes from Dick Knox - the Chair of the NFHS basketball rules committee.

From the original positng:

A1 scores a basket, as the ball goes through the net B1 grabs the ball and immediately passes it up court to a fastbreaking teammate. The problem is B1 has never stepped out of bounds. Both feet remained inbounds.....

The answers I have gotten are these:

1.) It is nothing, you blow your whistle and reset the throw in with B1 out of bounds. ( This seems strange since it could occur more than once and it seems there would be a procedure to handle this.)

2.) You immediately start your 5 second count since the ball is at the disposal of B1. Then you could have a 5 second count if they do not bring the ball back and throw it in correctly. ( The problem I see with this is alot can happen in that 5 second count, they could actually score quickly or a foul could be committed, it could really make the game messy.)

3.) You blow your whistle and reset the throw in for B and issue B a delay of game warning for boundary violation. ( Not sure this warning covers this.)

4.) It is a throw in violation. The ball was at B1's disposal, to make a legal throw in the player must be out of bounds, since B1 attempted a throw in it without going out of bounds it is a violation. ( The problem I am being told on this is that there is no rule or case that covers this directly and since B1 never stepped out of bounds the throw in did not begin, there for it cannot be a throw in violation.


Mary Struckhoff has said that (4) is the correct interpretation and Dick Knox has said that (3) is the correct interpretation.

Mary has said that all rules interpretation should go thru the official's state association. I have no problem with that but the interpretation must be an NFHS approved interpretation. We cannot have one state association interpretating a play one way and another state association interpretating a play another way.

IAABO uses NFHS and NCAA interpretations only.

I believe Mary's interpretation of the posted play is correct and Dick's interpretation is incorrect.

Lets look at the play again using NFHS Rules references.

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 samething. They refer to the thrower being inbounds before releasing the ball on a pass.

The fact that the thrower throw the ball in a throw-in manner (it is the best description I can come up with) is an indication of the players 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 continously 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 the calls for a technical foul for continously commiting the same violation. It is just poor play by the team involved.

I have a second more important concern, and that is the apparent belief by some people that state associations are the final authority to make interpretations. As I have stated above, the NFHS is the final authority on rules interpretations. There can be only one interpretations for everybody using NFHS rules, and IAABO uses only NFHS and NCAA interpretations in its interpretations.

I think Mary made it very clear that an official should follow his/her state's interpretation.

In this case, there is no NFHS interpretation, at least not until it's published in a rule or case book, on the NFHS website, or in a memo to each state association. An email to an official that one person would agree with an interpretation is not an NFHS ointerpretation, no matter who she is. Therefore, I believe states are in a position to make interpretations on such issues. If not, then Mary would not have suggested that Self contact the GHSA.

And I have news for you, different states do have different interpretaions of some situations. If you think we're all playing by the same rules in every case, you're mistaken.

Mary Struckhoff, as Rules Editor, she is NFHS. There cannot be 50 different interpretations to a play. There is only one intepretation to a play and it is the NFHS interpretation.

Mark,if you go back and re-read the posts:
1)the official IAABO response,as agreed to by Mary Struckhoff,says that it is a violation,and,-quote"it would be considered good officiating technique for the official after this occured to issue a warning that if a team persists in such tactics a technical foul would be assessed"-unquote.This,supposedly,is the one interpretation that you are talking about above that is definitive.
2)Mark T. DeNucci Sr.,who is a member of the IAABO Visual and Education Committee,says it is a violation,BUT-quote"this is not a delay of game warning situation,nor is it ever a technical foul for delay of game"-unquote-ALSO-quote"so forget this delay of game warning manure"-unquote.
Now,without even getting into why Dick Knox and Mary Struckhoff of the Fed rules committee disagree,could you tell me how you can disagree with your own association-IAABO?Also,how can you disagree with the Fed definitive response by Mary Struckhoff?Can you really blame TH for getting frustrated with you?You've inserted your own interpretation into this, and no one in an official capacity(Fed or IAABO) has agreed with it.Re-read Crew's Rome quote-he gave you good advice.

Big Tony(not Todd or l'il tony),you're definitely not dogmatic or condescending.Read once though that someone thought you were pompous(biiig grin).Don't stop talking to Mr. T. Someone on this board has to tell him when he's wrong.

Ga. IAABO Interpreter agree violation
 

The Ga. rule interpreter for IAABO Dean Erickson also agrees it is a violation. Sectretary of IAABO Ray McClure of RAYTHEREF.com and proclaimed "rules expert", Ray does rules clinics throughout the Southeast. He also agrees with it being violation. He did say that there is nothing, as we know, that discusses this directly. That at first thought he agreed with 5 second violation, but since A1 has No intent on going out of bounds an immediate violation can be called since A1 is attempting an illegal throw-in. Illegal because the basic fundimental rule of the thwow-in is being out of bounds.I did not show them the answers given by other parties, so to not sway their decision. They quoted the same rules as stated above.

Also I asked them regarding the technical and the only reasoning is it could be deemed making an atrocity of he game, deemed "no attempt to follow the guidelines of the rules".

I heard back from Referee Magazine, and was told they would try and put this in a future issue. I have emailed a couple of other people with NFHS to see there response and hope to hear back this week. I will let yall know.

No doubt I probably was! ;)


Problem is, he's never wrong, or so he thnks. I never recall him once admitting he was wrong. None of us are perfect. :(

1) Writing in the third person is the correct way to write on a subject. Talk to any high school English teacher.

2) The orginally posted play is such a simple play that I cannot believe that it has generated so many posts. The rules support a throw-in violation.

3) I repeat myself for the umpteenth time. This play has nothing to do with any of the three delay of game warnings listed in the NFHS Rules Book. This play is just careless play by A1, nothing complicated. Why would an official want to complicate it with an official delay of game warning when it is not? Why would an official even think of charging a technical foul for this violation and who would be charged with the technical foul? If you cannot explain the call do not make the call.

4) It is the opinion of this writer and many other more learned rules interpreters with whom I have talked, that only the NFHS can make official rules interpretations and that while an official can get a preliminary ruling from his state association, the NFHS is the final authority. We cannot have a different ruling for a play from each and every state association. I am registered by both the OhioHSAA and the MichiganHSAA. Can you imagine the chaos if Ohio said that the posted play was nothing more than a throw-in violaiton and Michigan said it is a reset, plus at delay of game warning, and then two border schools play each other (and they do, because I have such a game tomorrow).

Mark I agree with One interpretation
 

Mark, I agree with one rule one interpretation. The below post and quote that I posted earlier was disapointing Mary felt she needed to add contacting the Ga. office. I have done so along with others at NFHS. When I hear this week from them I will post their comments. I agree it is a violation and supported by many diferent rules. Maybe it will be added to the case book next year.

"All interpretations for high school basketball should be run through the Georgia state association. However, I do agree with the interpretation below (#4), but you may want to contact the basketball liaison at the Georgia office for their official interpretation".

Mary Struckhoff
Assistant Director - Basketball Editor/National Interpreter
National High School Federation

Mark,I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.Why does the the official Fed interpretation and your IAABO cohorts interpretation differ from your interpretation?They both say you can call a delay-of game warning!If NFHS is the final authority,why do you keep insisting that you can't call a delay of game warning?

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 penetrat the plane provided
he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the
ball is released on the throw-in pass. The oppoenent
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.

Mark What about Rule2 Art 3
 

We now have:

1.)The Head Rules Examiner for IAABO Roger MacTavish.
2.)Assistant Directer/NFHS Interpreter Mary Shruckhoff.
3.)Executive Committe/Ga. IAABO rules interpreter Dean Ericson.
4.) IAABO Secretary/ SE rules clinician Ray McClure.
5.) Still waiting from numerous others.

All agreeing could it not be that they are saying that a game cannot continue as such and per rule 3 article 2 we issue a warning after such violation that a technical will follow if the team persists making this violation, that it is to making an atrocity of the game by ignoring the rules?

I agree it is a violation, but I also could see this is making a mockery/atrocity of the game and you could use this rule if it continued. What do you think?

You all must be joking!!
 

C'mon people (especially Mark), do the phrases: advantage/disadvatnage, spirit of the rules, common sense, etc mean anything to you?

If the team does this once (and depending on the level of the game) blow the whistle as soon as it happens, bring play back for the throw in - if it is young kids, explain in a loud voice that they have to be behind the line for a throw in.

The second time make it a violation, and reward the ball to the other team. Subsequent occasions would warrant a technical.

At higher levels use a bit of judgement - was it an honest mistake? If so bring play back.

Where they trying to get an advantage, and as such did it intentionally - T them straight away!


Not all situations are clear cut, black and white - as referees we have to use our judgement, and not just rely on being able to quote the axact wording of every rule.

Perhaps some referees need to be less anally retentive, and more realistic and maintain their understanding of what sport is about - have a good time.

I'm with you Oz! Our job is to enforce the rules and/or the spirit of the rules. If this or any other play occurs which is not expressly covered, use some common sense, make a call and let's go.

Oz & Paulis, I can understand this at rec level..
 

But HS basketball especially Varsity level all should be call consistantly. Actually all levels from MS - HS should be called the same as far as the rules. You have alot on the line at these games and while I can appreciate the love of the game and it is for the kids. The lasr thing I want is to be calling with someone who has a great feel for the game and says just use common sense. All the rules are not just common sense and if we don't all follow the same rules then we make ourselves less professional. That is not to say a feel for the game or common sense is not an important part of the game. Just you can't eliminate the rules. When we become incosistent with each other, we are the ones hurting the game.

I agree all situation cannot be spelled out exactly in the books, but enough language is provided for you to interpret most all situations. If not then new cases need to be added. This may be one of them.

Self, I agree with you to a point but this situation clearly involves an area where there is going to be inconsistency, simply by the fact that it does not fit neatly into our rules. A definitive answer does not seem apparent and if such a situation arises on the court, at any level, give me a partner who can exercise common sense and understands the spirit and intent of the rules as opposed to a strict interpreter. I have a feeling that I would feel much more comfortable on the court with someone like Oz, whose philosophy seems to mirror mine, than with someone who might get caught up in overanalyzization. Just my humble thoughts.

OK,Mark,I finally got a definitive answer from you.Mary Struckhoff,Dick Knox,NCHSSA and supposedly 3 members of the IAABO executive committee have given out an incorrect interpretation of this sitch.Mark T. DeNucci Jr. has the correct interpretation.Just wanted you to come right out and say it.

Humble thoughts but a good post, nonetheless. There is no rule that is directly on point, which I've also previously stated. When there isn't, we either have to have an interpretation from the people who make decisions in our area or use our common sense.

Re: Oz & Paulis, I can understand this at rec level..
 

I agree that games need to be called consistently, and I would hope that most referees have a consistent idea of "common sense". I also agree that not all the rules are common sense - but this is a situation which is not specifically addressed by the rules.

I was not arguing that a referee should have less knowledge about the rules, and more "feel" for the game. Simply that, as far as I am concerned, and "good" referee should have an adequate understanding of the game to be able to make a fair judgement for any situation that is not specifically covered. This is where common sense becomes involved.

Finally, thanks Paulis - I would much prefer to sare a court with you, then say Mark snr.

Throw-in violation.

Jeeze, talk about short and sweet.

Re: I don't really think so
 

Thank you. This is what I have been saying along. Very simple.

Final Official Ruling(For me atleast)
 

I received my answer from Peter Webb(President IAABO) Rules committee and also a reclarification from Roger Mactavish(IAABO Rules Examination). It is a violation per rule 7-5-7. I read it and fianlly can agree 100% that this covers the situation.

"After a goal or awarded goal, the team not credited with the score shall make a throw-in from the end of the court where the goal was made and from any point OUTSIDE the endline. Any player may make a direct throw-in or may pass along the endline to a teammate outside the boundary line."

By the rules, this situation is a violation.

Re: Final Official Ruling(For me atleast)
 

Yep -- it's a violation of 7-5-7. Now, where can I find the penalty for violating that rule? ;)

The only "penalties" I can find relating to throw-ins are in 9-2. And, I don't see "not going out of bounds" listed as one of the criteria.

So, pending some "official" word, I think it's 2-3. You and Mark are free to call it a violation. I'll wait a while on that.

Bob, I believe that would be 9-2-2 & 9-2-6....
 

9-2-2...Fail to pass the ball directly INTO the court so it touches..... Key word being into, since you must be out of bounds to pass it into.

9-2-6... Touch the ball in the court before it touches or is touched by another player. Well if A1 is throwing the ball he becomes the thrower. So if he is on the court throwing it he is the fisrt to touch it in the court.

No to be sarcastic but, this is a little amazing to me that we still have people saying this is not a violation. We have had the highest people in IAABO and NFHS say that it is a violation and point numerous rules that the decision is based on. I don't understand now why we still can't agree that it is.

What rules are the doubters using to say it is not a violation?

I would start the 5 second count in a varsity game and whistle the violation when it occurs. In the lower level games blow the whistle and reset. I know this sounds like a double standard but I believe in officiating to the level of the players.

Re: Bob, I believe that would be 9-2-2 & 9-2-6....
 

The rule the doubters are using is 4-41-3. That is, the throw-in hasn't started, so it can't be a violation.

Suppose, in the original example, A1 threw to A2 who then took the ball out of bounds for a "throw-in." Would you have a violation? Why not? How is that different from the original play?

If B requests TO before A has released the ball, do you grant it? If it's a "throw-in" then you can't. Have you started your count?

I agree that A "did something wrong." What they did wrong was violate a rule that, IMHO, doesn't have a specific penalty.

If I were on the rules committee (and I'm not), I'd vote for a "do-over" with a caution (to avoid using the word "warning") that if it happens again it could be construed as a delay of game (10-1-5b). I think that's what Dick Knox was referring to.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong or is other than what the NFHS wants. Just that I'll wait for the rules committee to resolve the issue (so far, Dick is on one side and Mary is on the other).

I can't believe this post made 5 pages. I usually agree with most things bktballref says, but not this time.

1) We do not have any of the 3 warnings.
2) The 5 second count really does not start until a player in the area picks up the ball and makes it live. If nobody comes to the ball, then start your count
3) But in this post, a player made the ball live illegally.
THIS IS A CLEAR CUT THROW IN VIOLATION.

Why are some of you trying to bail out the team that is inbounding the ball. They blew it, not you. So blow your whistle and move on. This is so easy, not exactly a block/charge call that you need to sell. I can't even see a coach arguing that fact.

With saying that, I am talking about any competitive league.
(School level games (7th grade and above), Travel games, Adult leagues..)

If this is true Rec ball, where they do not know the rules, then you can just blow the whistle and have them re-administer the throw-in. You are more of a teacher at that level.

Just my 2 cents. BTW, what can you buy for just 2 cents anymore???

My good Doctor,If you re-read what BBRef had to say,you will find that what BBRef does is not what he would like to do.He has been instructed through Dick Knox of the Fed rules committee and his state governing body that he has to call the play that way.No other option is available to him.Now Georgia has issued a completely different ruling.The rulings conflict,but officials in each state have to call it the way they have been instructed.The rest of the world does not have a definitive answer,as the the rulebook doesn't cover it.They can call it several different ways,depending how they interpret the rule.That's all that Bob Jenkins was saying.I personally agree with Bob's way to call it,but that doesn't make me right.It also doesn't make me wrong,until an official Fed ruling comes to my area that says different,or a national Fed ruling is issued.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 13th, 2001 at 02:39 PM]

Jurassic Ref.. The official NFHS ruling was given.
 

Mary Struckhoff of NFHS agree with the IAABO ruling. She is National Federation. I spoke with her and this is how the NFHS rules the situation. Her comment was made to see if Ga. had an interpretation that was different. We are not suppose to contact NFHS directly only our State interpreter. I found a loop hole to get to her directly. I still am not sure how this could be ruled anything but a violation. All the rules given seem to ouline it pretty good.

"All interpretations for high school basketball should be run through the Georgia state association.Â* However, I do agree with the interpretation below (#4), but you may want to contact the basketball liaison at the Georgia office for their official interpretation."

Mary Struckhoff
Assistant Director - Basketball Editor/National Interpreter
National High School Federation

Re: Jurassic Ref.. The official NFHS ruling was given.
 

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.

daves, the problem with that is that a lot can happen in 5 seconds.

Let's say there's 8 seconds left in a tie game.

A1 grabs the ball. You're counting "1!"

A1 throws a long pass to A2. "2!"

A2 shoots a 3! "3!"

Shot is good! "4!"

B1 has the ball for a throw-in. You reach "5."

Now you have a helluva a situation to straighten out. You're going to take away the 3 that would probably win the game for A and give the ball to B, under their basket with 3 seconds remaining.

Of the 3 possibilities, this would be my least favorite. With the warning, there's no turnover and there's no chance of having to correct a huge mess as with the 5 second count.

Fortunately, I've been told how to handle it and don't have to worry about this play. ;)

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.

A final word and I'm done with this one.
 

This situation came up last year on one of the discussion boards and in our local clinics. I emailed Dick and he gave me instructions that it should be a delay of game warning. To my knowledge, he hasn't issued a statewide memo or letter covering this situation. He just gave his interpretation, just as Mary gave her interpretation to Self.

His reasoning was that the 5 second count, although probably it provides the closest rule basis, would create too much of a problem with all the things that might happen during the 5 seconds.

It's not a throw-in violation because the throw-in hasn't began.

Although it doesn't explicitly meet any of the delay of game warnings, the offense is indeed delaying the game because they have not inbounded the ball as required. But that it not a throw-in violation.

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.

"Thank you very much! That's it for me!"

"Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building!" :p

BktBall Ref .. You below statement indicates violation.
 

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.

Re: Re: Jurassic Ref.. The official NFHS ruling was given.
 

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]

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.

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.

I said I was done but a lack of rules knowledge has brought me back.
 

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.

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.

Oz Referee... Just had to add this
 

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.

Jurassic Referee... Thanks
 

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..

Re: Oz Referee... Just had to add this
 

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.

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 playerÂ’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.

Re: Re: Oz Referee... Just had to add this
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Oz Referee... Just had to add this
 

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?

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.

Gotcha.

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

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

BktBallRef... Just had to add this
 

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..

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)

I spoke with Dick Knox today...
 

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....

Re: I spoke with Dick Knox today...
 

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.

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

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. :(


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

Email to all...
 

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...

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

Have a good game!

Re: Email to all...
 

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.

Another response in.....
 

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.

GHSA Executive Director Response
 

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

Ralph sounds like a smart man! :D

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