The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 31, 2007, 03:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I vote for #2, and here is why:

1) I am going to issue an official warning to Team B.
See NFHS R4-S47-A1, R9-S2-A11, Penalty 1.

2) I am going to charge B1 with a technical foul.
See NFHS R10-S3-A6a.


I can understands BITS logic for wanting to use:
NFHS R4-S47-A1, R9-S2-A11, Penalty 3,
because one could infer that even though no player from Team A was in physical possession of the ball, it was in Team A's disposal when B1 reached thru the though boundary plane and picked up the ball.

MTD, Sr.
What is the difference between the two situations?

1). The ball was place on the floor by the official.
2). Team A place the ball on the floor.

in both situations team b reach through and touched the ball. How can the same act have different interpretations on how to penalize?
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 31, 2007, 03:51pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
To me, the difference is of "possession" which is required by rule. I can argue that A is in possession of the ball even if he has temporarily set it down next to his feet. I have a harder time making that argument when the official has set it down instead and no one from A has picked it up yet.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 31, 2007, 04:08pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by truerookie
What is the difference between the two situations?

1). The ball was place on the floor by the official.
2). Team A place the ball on the floor.

in both situations team b reach through and touched the ball. How can the same act have different interpretations on how to penalize?

I did not say there were two interpretations. I said that one could make the logical deduction that in this case the thrower could be considered in possession of the ball during a throw-in because the ball was at Team A's disposal for a throw-in. Both the NBCofUS&C and its successor organizations, the NFHS and the NCAA, have never made a ruling to my knowledge that defines this situation as a thrower being in possession of the ball while his team has the ball at its disposal. Therefore, it is a more logical to apply R9-S2-A11, Penalty 1 and NFHS R10-S3-A6a, than it is to use R9-S2-A11, Penalty 3, which requires the use of R10-S3-A11. The result is the same: team warning to Team B and a direct technical foul charged to B1.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1