FED 2007-2008 Interps Are Out

[Scrapper1]

Wow, #12 is awful. No T if the confusion is the result of subbing, but T if the confusion is after a time-out. I don't like that at all.

[Scrapper1]

SITUATION 13: Team A members are shouting disparaging, racial and/or profane remarks directed toward their own teammates. RULING: Such unsporting acts shall be penalized regardless if directed toward opponents or teammates.

This one deserves its own (sure to be locked) thread!

[Scrapper1]

Ok, I'm sorry to keep posting, but as I read these, I'm just stunned by some of them.

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A.

Didn't we just change the rule so that if the first touch was a violation, we wouldn't switch the arrow?!?!?!

Also, wasn't there some discussion of the throw-in spot following this violation? Didn't the penalty change so that the throw-in returned to the original spot?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Ok, I'm sorry to keep posting, but as I read these, I'm just stunned by some of them.

Didn't we just change the rule so that if the first touch was a violation, we wouldn't switch the arrow?!?!?!

That is for touches that are always illegal (kick) no matter where/when they occur...but not touches that would be legal dependant on player location.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Also, wasn't there some discussion of the throw-in spot following this violation? Didn't the penalty change so that the throw-in returned to the original spot?

There was. An interpretation was published that said it was to be at the original throwin spot. However, there was also non-insignificant rules and case support for the throwin spot to be the spot of the OOB violation. Looks like they may have corrected the somewhat recent interpretation that had the effect of make this a throwin violation instead of a OOB violation. Logicially, and consistent with all other violation penalties, the throwin spot should be at the point of the actual violation.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is for touches that are always illegal (kick) no matter where/when they occur...but not touches that would be legal dependant on player location..

Where can I read that?

There was. An interpretation was published that said it was to be at the original throwin spot. However, there was also non-insignificant rules and case support for the throwin spot to be the spot of the OOB violation. .

Where can I read that?

Not being a smartass, I've just never seen any of this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Where can I read that?

Not sure that you can...in explicit terms. Touching with the hand isn't what is illegal. It is being OOB while touching it. So, the touch itself is legal. Stepping OOB is not.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Where can I read that?

OK, Scrapper looked it up (http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...3&postcount=17). It wasn't actually a case or interp. but a line in the rule that was added to the throwin rule in 04-05 to say that it should have been at the original throwin spot since it was a violation of the throwin.

Now, according to Scrapper, it was moved to the out-of-bounds rule (where it should have been all along), no longer a throwin violation. This restores the throwin spot to match all other OOB violations...at the spot of the violation.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Not being a smartass, I've just never seen any of this.

You, a smartass? Never would have thought it. Although your technique did start to resemble others I've seen here.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

OK, Scrapper looked it up (http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...3&postcount=17). It wasn't actually a case or interp. but a line in the rule that was added to the throwin rule in 04-05 to say that it should have been at the original throwin spot since it was a violation of the throwin.

Now, according to Scrapper, it was moved to the out-of-bounds rule (where it should have been all along), no longer a throwin violation. This restores the throwin spot to match all other OOB violations...at the spot of the violation.

Yes and yes. The NFHS made an editorial change a couple of years ago that messed this up. Now they have fixed it by moving and making what was 9-2-10 (2007) into 9-3-2 (2008), and the old 9-3-2 (2007) is now 9-3-3 (2008).
This is much better. This is no longer classified as a throw-in violation, but rather has become an out of bounds violation. The ensuing throw-in will be from the spot of the OOB violation.