The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 02:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,518
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)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 02:32pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,402
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 02:35pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,402
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 02:36pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,402
Quote:
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!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 02:40pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,402
Ok, I'm sorry to keep posting, but as I read these, I'm just stunned by some of them.

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 02:43pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 02:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
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.

__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith

Last edited by BktBallRef; Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 03:04pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:03pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith

Last edited by BktBallRef; Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 03:07pm.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:24pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Just flip the arrow when you hand the ball to the thrower; this all goes away.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,518
Quote:
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)

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:34pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,402
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,123
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 08, 2007, 03:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
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.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2007-2008 VB Points of Emphasis FMadera Volleyball 0 Fri Jul 13, 2007 04:50pm
IRS announces 2007 standard mileage rates Rates take effect Jan. 1, 2007 Larks Basketball 0 Tue Nov 07, 2006 09:22am
NCAA-W Interps bob jenkins Basketball 30 Fri Jan 16, 2004 08:42am
I made the interps! Nevadaref Basketball 5 Thu Oct 30, 2003 09:05am
Where do all those interps come from? Carl Childress Baseball 30 Sat Mar 03, 2001 11:40am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1