5-9-4 unannounced change

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Do you remember our long discussion about whether the clock should start on a kicked ball after a throw-in? Some thought the clock should start, then (immediately?) stop, because of last year's wording of 5-9-4. Others hoped they would add this wording that the ball has to be legally touched in order for the clock to start. This wording has now been added.

Which is how we know that someone is reading this board who has some input.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by PYRef

Correct me if I'm wrong,
Team A has the AP throw-in. If the throw-in is first touched OOB by A2 it's a throw-in violation. Ball goes to the opponent at the original throw-in spot and A loses the arrow. No time would come off. You would never start and stop the clock for a touch OOB.

You were right last season. You are wrong this season. Reorganization of the rules removed this from throw-in violations and placed it in OOB violations. Likely due to a discussion on this forum.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Do you remember our long discussion about whether the clock should start on a kicked ball after a throw-in? Some thought the clock should start, then (immediately?) stop, because of last year's wording of 5-9-4. Others hoped they would add this wording that the ball has to be legally touched in order for the clock to start. This wording has now been added. In addition, if this was an AP throw-in, the arrow stays the same because the throw-in has not been completed.

Do I recall that discussion? Let's see...did you read what I wrote in the first post of this thread?

In fact, I was the one who pointed out that the NFHS rule did not include the word legally while the NCAA rule did. Therefore, I took the position that in an NFHS game the clock should start and stop per rule. I also stated that the NFHS should change this. Furthermore, when the NFHS announced that they were changing how a throw-in ended by adding the word legally to rule 4-42-5, I quickly noted that they should make sure to also alter the clock rule to match.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Which is how we know that someone is reading this board who has some input.

Yep, and the scary thing is that they agree with me on some items!

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, let's fast-forward to this year's Sit. 3 interpretation - now they are saying the AP throw-in is completed, even though the ball is touched by a player OOB. So, are they counting the touch OOB as a legal touch? Therefore, should the clock start and stop? Or is the touching OOB not a legal touch, and therefore the switching of the arrow is in contradiction to the kicked-ball ruling?

Yes, the throw-in is completed when a player who is touching OOB contacts the ball in a legal manner. That means that he doesn't kick it or punch it with a closed fist.

Yes, the NFHS considers the touch itself to be legal. However, the position of the player is not legal. The player is penalized with an OOB violation per 9-3-2.

There is no contradiction with the "kicked-ball ruling" provided in new case book play 4.42.5 and the clock should not start in either case.

What you are missing is that the clock rule is completely separate from the rule which governs how a throw-in ends. The clock rule (5-9-4 which is the subject of this thread) now reads "...is legally touched by, a player on the court..." That means a player who is inbounds. So the clock only starts when an inbounds player legally contacts the ball. If an OOB player contacts the ball directly from a throw-in pass, the throw-in will end if the contact was legal or won't end if the contact was illegal, but either way the clock will not start. Why? Because two separate rules must be applied. One to decide whether the throw-in will end or not and another which says that the clock only starts on the legal touch of an inbounds player. So strictly speaking the second rule here (5-9-4) doesn't apply to the given situation (because the touching player is OOB) and thus the clock can't be started.

Stated in a simpler way, in order for the clock to be started the player initially touching the ball from the throw-in pass must meet two requirements:
1. contact the ball legally
2. be on the court (= inbounds)

I hope that clears it up for you.

[Adam]

Nevada, we know they're separate. I just think it's inconsistent.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The clock rule (5-9-4 which is the subject of this thread) now reads "...is legally touched by, a player on the court..." That means a player who is inbounds.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Of course not.

Why does the rule read, "on the court", and not "inbounds"? Aren't the lines part of the court? In Situation 3, since the player A2 is standing on the line, are they considered "on the court"? If the court is only the inbounds area, then according to 4-34-1, A1 who is throwing the ball in, and A2, who is OOB, are not considered "players"?

[blindofficial]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You were right last season. You are wrong this season. Reorganization of the rules removed this from throw-in violations and placed it in OOB violations. Likely due to a discussion on this forum.




Do I recall that discussion? Let's see...did you read what I wrote in the first post of this thread?

In fact, I was the one who pointed out that the NFHS rule did not include the word legally while the NCAA rule did. Therefore, I took the position that in an NFHS game the clock should start and stop per rule. I also stated that the NFHS should change this. Furthermore, when the NFHS announced that they were changing how a throw-in ended by adding the word legally to rule 4-42-5, I quickly noted that they should make sure to also alter the clock rule to match.


Yep, and the scary thing is that they agree with me on some items!



Yes, the throw-in is completed when a player who is touching OOB contacts the ball in a legal manner. That means that he doesn't kick it or punch it with a closed fist.

Yes, the NFHS considers the touch itself to be legal. However, the position of the player is not legal. The player is penalized with an OOB violation per 9-3-2.

There is no contradiction with the "kicked-ball ruling" provided in new case book play 4.42.5 and the clock should not start in either case.

What you are missing is that the clock rule is completely separate from the rule which governs how a throw-in ends. The clock rule (5-9-4 which is the subject of this thread) now reads "...is legally touched by, a player on the court..." That means a player who is inbounds. So the clock only starts when an inbounds player legally contacts the ball. If an OOB player contacts the ball directly from a throw-in pass, the throw-in will end if the contact was legal or won't end if the contact was illegal, but either way the clock will not start. Why? Because two separate rules must be applied. One to decide whether the throw-in will end or not and another which says that the clock only starts on the legal touch of an inbounds player. So strictly speaking the second rule here (5-9-4) doesn't apply to the given situation (because the touching player is OOB) and thus the clock can't be started.

Stated in a simpler way, in order for the clock to be started the player initially touching the ball from the throw-in pass must meet two requirements:
1. contact the ball legally
2. be on the court (= inbounds)

I hope that clears it up for you.

I understand the ruling, however the one question I have is does legally mean in control? Let's say the ball gets thrown in and the A1 happens to make a last second cut and it just braces off his fingertips and goes OOB? How does control of the ball impact this?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by blindofficial

I understand the ruling, however the one question I have is does legally mean in control? Let's say the ball gets thrown in and the A1 happens to make a last second cut and it just braces off his fingertips and goes OOB? How does control of the ball impact this?

"Legally touched" does not mean control.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindofficial

I understand the ruling, however the one question I have is does legally mean in control? Let's say the ball gets thrown in and the A1 happens to make a last second cut and it just braces off his fingertips and goes OOB? How does control of the ball impact this?

Player or team control isn't relevant to the correct call.