FED 2007-2008 Interps Are Out
 

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 also think Situation 12 is confusing (although it does match the case play change this year)

It's not what I would've liked, either. But it matches the rationale for the case book change that we discussed in the "Sorry, Nevada" thread (http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=38126). I haven't seen situation 12 yet, but I'll go look at all of them today. Thanks for the update.

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.

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

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?!?!?!

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?

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 <b>isn't</b> a <b>defensive</b> player then.

Who woulda thunk it?

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.

:confused:

double :confused:

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.

I'm also :confused:.

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.

Just flip the arrow when you hand the ball to the thrower; this all goes away. :D

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.