Throw In Violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Both plays are legal imo under both NFHS and NCAA rules.

I agree. So what is this business about?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

i.e. the thrower stepping in bounds and then back OOB while the ball is loose OOB-

If that were true, then would play (b) above be a violation?

I have to conclude that it isn't a true statement.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree. So what is this business about?


If that were true, then would play (b) above be a violation?

I have to conclude that it isn't a true statement.

Conclude what you want to conclude. I don't have a clue what that stoopid NCAA AR is saying. And I basically could give a damn less what the NCAA AR is saying. IT DOESN'T MATTER! And again(and again and again and.... ), the NCAA AR doesn't mean squat with regards to the original post. It's irrelevant. It's not germane. It's got nothing to do with anything. IT DOESN'T MATTER! That's what people are trying to get through to you, and it doesn't seem to penetrate that ossified material surrounding whatever is inside your head.

You are claiming that the NCAA AR makes the original post into a violation. No one agrees with you. No one! End of story. Cut to black.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Conclude what you want to conclude. I don't have a clue what that stoopid NCAA AR is saying. And I basically could give a damn less what the NCAA AR is saying. IT DOESN'T MATTER! And again(and again and again and.... ), the NCAA AR doesn't mean squat with regards to the original post. It's irrelevant. It's not germane. It's got nothing to do with anything. IT DOESN'T MATTER! That's what people are trying to get through to you, and it doesn't seem to penetrate that ossified material surrounding whatever is inside your head.

You are claiming that the NCAA AR makes the original post into a violation. No one agrees with you. No one! End of story. Cut to black.

Yes, I am claiming that if it took place in an NCAA game, the situation in the OP would be a violation solely due to what is written in A.R. 155.
You say no violation. Why?
Because there is one little, insignificant sentence in the setup of the play? Why do you focus on the thrower stepping inbounds in that description?
So the A.R. isn't a perfect match for the OP, but it is darn close! So close in fact, that it seems to be the best written ruling available on the play from the NCAA. (NFHS has nothing specific. We just have to look at the text of the rules. Of course, if we did that with the NCAA rules, we'd have to conclude that the play is legal.)
Now that is what you won't accept. Instead you either choose to fudge and say that the thrower fumbled the ball, when in fact he passed it, or continue to nitpick on some tiny detail, which is really the part that is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that some moron who as MTD said earlier can't read or correctly apply the NCAA rules, but happens to have a position of power within the organization, wrote a ridiculous ruling which is currently official. So we internet folks will just have to sit back and wait for it to get deleted by someone else who actually has power in the real world.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, I am claiming that if it took place in an NCAA game, the situation in the OP would be a violation solely due to what is written in A.R. 155.

And yes, absolutely no one else agrees with you.

That means it's time to let 'er go. We're all just going around in circles now, repeating ourselves.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have been climbing up into the attic the last couple of days to read old rules books and casebook plays.

I went through:

1) Rules books, casebooks, handbooks, and officials manuals, supplemental
rules interpretations, and mid-season bulletins of the following
organizations going back as far back as the 1971-72 season:
a) Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada (NBCUSC)/NFHS/NCAA
Men's & Women's
b) Nat'l. Assn. of Girls' and Women's in Sports (NAGWS).
c) International Federation of Basketball Assciations (FIBA).

2) Every copy of Referee Magazine going back to its very first issue and
every rules as well as every NASO publicatioin going back to when NASO
was founded.

3) Every copy of the IAABO Sportorial that I have ever received.


I have found the following things:

1) The definition of when a throw-in starts and ends has not changed over
the years.

2) When the AP Arrow is reversed was changed to its current rule no more
than a couple of years after the AP Arrow was adopted.

3) I could not find a single play like the one in the O(riginal) P(ost).

4) The Ruling in NCAA A.R. 155 is wrong. In fact there is no rule support
for the ruling made in A.R. 155.

Whoever in the NCAA came up with the ruling in A.R. 155 did not read the rules book. Furthermore, whoever wrote the ruling applied rules that apply to Designated Spot Throw-ins, not for Throw-ins After a Goal. The entire ruling is nonsense. This is just another example of a ruling being made withoug applying the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have been climbing up into the attic the last couple of days to read old rules books and casebook plays.

I went through:

1) Rules books, casebooks, handbooks, and officials manuals, supplemental
rules interpretations, and mid-season bulletins of the following
organizations going back as far back as the 1971-72 season:
a) Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada (NBCUSC)/NFHS/NCAA
Men's & Women's
b) Nat'l. Assn. of Girls' and Women's in Sports (NAGWS).
c) International Federation of Basketball Assciations (FIBA).

2) Every copy of Referee Magazine going back to its very first issue and
every rules as well as every NASO publicatioin going back to when NASO
was founded.

3) Every copy of the IAABO Sportorial that I have ever received.


I have found the following things:

1) The definition of when a throw-in starts and ends has not changed over
the years.

2) When the AP Arrow is reversed was changed to its current rule no more
than a couple of years after the AP Arrow was adopted.

3) I could not find a single play like the one in the O(riginal) P(ost).

4) The Ruling in NCAA A.R. 155 is wrong. In fact there is no rule support
for the ruling made in A.R. 155.

Whoever in the NCAA came up with the ruling in A.R. 155 did not read the rules book. Furthermore, whoever wrote the ruling applied rules that apply to Designated Spot Throw-ins, not for Throw-ins After a Goal. The entire ruling is nonsense. This is just another example of a ruling being made withoug applying the rules.

MTD, Sr.

I agree with you 100%.
However, since that silly A.R. is in the CURRENT rules book and CURRENTLY is the official ruling. It would pretty hard to defend NOT calling it that way in a game.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree with you 100%.
However, since that silly A.R. is in the CURRENT rules book and CURRENTLY is the official ruling. It would pretty hard to defend NOT calling it that way in a game.

NevadaRef:

I agreee with your last sentence but I could not in good concience enforce a ruling that is 100% wrong by rule.

MTD, Sr.