BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh? I thought it had sumthin' to do with male bodily fluids.

Beer?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Beer?

Beer is a temporary male bodily fluid.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Beer is a temporary male bodily fluid.

For some, maybe.

[just another ref]

After a long and thoughtful consideration, I have decided that since there is no published definition of what a "defensive player" is, each of us must make up his/her own mind and proceed accordingly. Forget team control for a minute.
On a throw-in, team A has the ball, therefore they are offense. So, conversely, team B must be defense. The way I see it, they will continue to be defense on this play until they gain control of the ball or until a shot goes up. Therefore, if B2 leaps from FC, grabs the ball and lands in BC, I believe I will continue to consider this a legal play until a casebook play comes out which states something different.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A Therefore, if B2 leaps from FC, grabs the ball and lands in BC, I believe I will continue to consider this a legal play until a casebook play comes out which states something different.

And I certainly can believe that you will call it that way too.

A casebook play has already came out that said something different. You just simply fail to understand it. Casebook play 9.9.1SitD says "The exception granted during the throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball".

If you want to apply the exception to a player that gets the ball AFTER the initial touch was made by another player, hey, go for it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I certainly can believe that you will call it that way too.

A casebook play has already came out that said something different. You just simply fail to understand it. Casebook play 9.9.1SitD says "The exception granted during the throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball".

If you want to apply the exception to a player that gets the ball AFTER the initial touch was made by another player, hey, go for it.

The throw-in exception is for the offense, Team A. This case play deals with Team A. Team B, the defensive team, has its own exception, which is in effect all the time, not just on a throw-in.

That is my take. I don't see anything in the book which disproves it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The throw-in exception is for the offense, Team A. This case play deals with Team A. Team B, the defensive team, has its own exception, which is in effect all the time, not just on a throw-in.

That is my take. I don't see anything in the book which disproves it.

RIF. The case play that I just cited disproves it.

It doesn't matter who is on offense or defense. The exception on 9-9-3 ended on the first touch. No exception---->violation no matter which player on the floor does it.

Do what you gotta do. Waste of time arguing it any further. If you won't believe the case book, you obviously won't believe anyone on here either.

May I make a suggestion? Find yourself a qualified rules interpreter somewhere in your state and ask him. That might save you a little embarrassment down the road.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

RIF. The case play that I just cited disproves it.

It doesn't matter who is on offense or defense. The exception on 9-9-3 ended on the first touch. No exception---->violation no matter which player on the floor does it.

Jurassic, while you could be right the case play you cited doesn't disprove the play at all. The case only addresses when the throwin exception ends. It doesn't address when the defensive player's exception ends or who a defensive player is. That's the exception he's applying. Of course, that's an entirely different question than claiming that it is legal under the throwin excpetion.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

RIF. The case play that I just cited disproves it.

It doesn't matter who is on offense or defense. The exception on 9-9-3 ended on the first touch. No exception---->violation no matter which player on the floor does it.

The only thing the case play proves is that the throw-in exception ends on the first touch for the offense.

For the case play to settle this issue one way or the other it would have to have another situation where a B player is the first to gain control and comes down in the BC.

The only other way I can think of that this play could be settled is with some information about what a defensive player is. Apparently you think that no team control= no offense no defense. That is a theory but I see no rule or case which backs it up. My theory is that since A has the ball on the throw-in B must be defense.

Is there any use of the term "defensive player" anywhere in any of the books other than in 9-9-3?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Jurassic, while you could be right the case play you cited doesn't disprove the play at all. The case only addresses when the throwin exception ends. It doesn't address when the defensive player's exception ends or who a defensive player is. That's the exception he's applying. Of course, that's an entirely different question than claiming that it is legal under the throwin excpetion.

I agree, Camron. It seems to me that Jurassic is the one who doesn't understand the point which is being debated here.

Tony has always maintained that there are THREE distinct exceptions to the backcourt rule. They are the three which were enumerated as such in the old text before the rule was rewritten.

He has also maintained that the when the NFHS reworded the rule, they did not intend to alter its meaning or application. I argued last season that the NFHS unintentionally altered the rule with the editorial rewrite creating a number of new situations which were exempt from backcourt violations, and thus we had to alter our application of it. Due to the new case play that seems to have been incorrect while Tony's position has now been supported by the new case play.

Therefore, if we are to understand that there are still three ways in which a player may be granted an exception to committing a backcourt violation, and it doesn't matter under which exception he qualifies, we have to check for all three of them before calling a violation.

All of us agree that the throw-in has ended and thus the exception granted to any player for violating after catching the ball "during a throw-in" clearly does not apply. All of us also agree that this action does not take place "during a jump ball" and so this exception can't apply. However, it is unclear if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" during this scenario and thus granted an exception for that. JR is failing to see that argument. He seems to be lumping all of the exceptions into one big exception due to the rewrite, when, if I understand Tony and the NFHS correctly, he should instead be considering them separately.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

All of us agree that the throw-in has ended and thus the exception granted to any player for violating after catching the ball "during a throw-in" clearly does not apply. However, it is unclear if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" during this scenario and thus granted an exception for that.

I didn't fail to see your argument. I just can't believe that anyone is actually still arguing since that case play came out.

Unbelievable.

You want to have a "defensive" player when there is NO offense or defense.

Feel free to argue this further. It's a complete waste of time, but go ahead. I'll leave it to you.

I know that Nevada won't call his state rules interpreter to get his take because his opinion is worth more than the interpreter's rulings, but I recommend others reading this thread to do just that.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You want to have a "defensive" player when there is NO offense or defense.

Rule citation, please.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Rule citation, please.

NFHS rule 4-12 and case book play 4.12COMMENT, as previously cited numerous times.Read 4-12-6 and follow that up by reading 4-12-1&2.

Now you try citing something that will back up your claim.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is there any use of the term "defensive player" anywhere in any of the books other than in 9-9-3?

Sorry, I do not have my rule book in front of me but.... if you look at "Free Throws" it states that a defensive player has to occupy the 1st lane space. And a defensive player is a player on the team that does not have "Team Control".
Now most of this problem could go away if there is "Team Control" during the Throw-in (Like NCAA). Right?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Sorry, I do not have my rule book in front of me but.... if you look at "Free Throws" it states that a defensive player has to occupy the 1st lane space. And a defensive player is a player on the team that does not have "Team Control".

Not a valid point, Zooch. During a FT, the shooter establishes player and team control for his team when he receives the ball. When he shoots it, that player and team control ends. Are you really trying to say that there is a defensive team during a FT or a rebound? If so, read case book play 4.12.2.