FED 2007-2008 Interps Are Out

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Of special interest (and NOT what I would have ruled):

SITUATION 9: Team A is making a throw-in near the division line in the team's frontcourt (Team B's backcourt). A1's throw-in is deflected by B1, who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his/her backcourt and catches the ball in the air. B2 lands with the first foot in the frontcourt and second foot in the backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team B. The throw-in ends with the deflection (legal touch) by B1. B2 gains possession/control and first lands in Team B's frontcourt and then steps in Team B's backcourt. The provision for making a normal landing only applies to the exceptions of a throw-in and a DEFENSIVE player, and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball. (9-9-1; 9-9-3)

I see that Situation # 7 says that it's also a violation if B2 lands directly in the back court after intercepting the tipped throw-in.

Gee, in #9, I guess that B2 isn't a defensive player then.

Who woulda thunk it?

[BktBallRef]

Why is the arrow reversed in Situation #3 if B violated?
And yes, the throw-in is from the original spot, not the spot nearest the violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why is the arrow reversed in SItuation #3 iof B violated?

And yes, the throw-in is from the original spot, not the spot nearest the violation.

double

[BktBallRef]

6.4.5.A reads, " A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure."

6-4-4
The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends or when the throw-in team violates.

4-42-5
A throw-in ends when the throw-in pass is "legally" touched by another player.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why is the arrow reversed in Situation #3 if B violated?
And yes, the throw-in is from the original spot, not the spot nearest the violation.

I'm also .

In Situation 3 they are saying the touch is a "legal" touch, thus ending the throw-in, then the violation occurs because the players are standing OOB. That would explain why the throw-in is from the spot closest to the violation. But yet a kicked ball violation is not a "legal" touch and doesn't end the throw-in.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm also .

In Situation 3 they are saying the touch is a "legal" touch, thus ending the throw-in, then the violation occurs because the players are standing OOB. That would explain why the throw-in is from the spot closest to the violation.

Which means the clock should start (and "immedaitely" stop)

But yet a kicked ball violation is not a "legal" touch and doesn't end the throw-in.

And the clock doesn't start.

And the catch of a jump ball is not a legal touch (which is why B gets the ball but A gets the arrow).

For the record, I "agree" with the ruling in Situation 3, but I recognize the (apparent) contradictions.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That would explain why the throw-in is from the spot closest to the violation.

I don't think so. 9-2 PENALTY (Section 2) says "Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot." There's no distinction between a violation at the throw-in spot or at a different out of bounds spot.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think so. 9-2 PENALTY (Section 2) says "Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot." There's no distinction between a violation at the throw-in spot or at a different out of bounds spot.

But that's what Sit. 3 is saying - the new throw-in spot is closest to where A2 or B2 were OOB. Iow, the violation is now an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't think so. 9-2 PENALTY (Section 2) says "Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot." There's no distinction between a violation at the throw-in spot or at a different out of bounds spot.

9-2 covers throwin violations. If it is not a throwin violation, then 9-2 doesn't apply. A point that was debated when the previous interp. came out was that a throwin that is touched while OOB is not a throwin violation but an OOB violation. The previous interp. treated it as a throwin violation and the current interp. doesn't. The NFHS has corrected themselves to match what the interpreation was for decades (except for the last several months)

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

9-2 covers throwin violations. If it is not a throwin violation, then 9-2 doesn't apply. A point that was debated when the previous interp. came out was that a throwin that is touched while OOB is not a throwin violation but an OOB violation. The previous interp. treated it as a throwin violation and the current interp. doesn't. The NFHS has corrected themselves to match what the interpreation was for decades (except for the last several months)

I love this stuff. First of all, it wasn't an interp; it was actually the rule. In the '04-'05 book, 9-2-10 (under throw-in violations) says that no player shall be out of bounds when touched by the throw-in pass. That made it a throw-in violation, not an out of bounds violation.

Second of all, however, that article was deleted from this year's book (in an apparently unannounced change), so now the rule is once again what it always was supposed to be. I didn't realize that the rule changed back last year. Thanks for making me go and look it up.

Actually, that article wasn't deleted. It was simply moved verbatim to Section 3 "Out of Bounds".

And FWIW, I still think that the arrow should not change in this situation. The ball was not touched legally. It doesn't matter if it would have been legal in some other circumstance. (At least, it shouldn't matter.)

[FrankHtown]

SITUATION 12: Following a (a) charged time-out; or (b) a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced by a substitute. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's frontcourt when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return, and he/she sprints onto the court and catches up with play. RULING: In (a), the officials shall stop play and assess a team technical foul for not having all players return to the court at approximately the same time after a time-out. The technical foul counts toward the team-foul count. In (b), the officials may permit play to continue without penalty. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court. COMMENT: Even though neither situation provided A5 or Team A with an advantage, teams are expected to return to the court at approximately the same time following a time-out. The officials should have also followed the prescribed mechanics and counted the number of players on the court, ensuring each team has the legal number of players. (10-1-9; 10-3-3)

I'm so confused. I thought you couldn't enter the court unless you were properly beckoned.

Also, suppose play is at Team A's defensive end....suddenly Team A gets the ball ...THEN the coach calls to A5 to get in the game (as in situation B). Breakaway layup time..