The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 127
Case Book 9-9-1 Sit. D

Don't know if anyone remembers (or cares) but we had a lengthy discussion last March regarding this play and even got an explanation from Struckoff about this. As a result we got a new definition of when a throw-in ends it clarified some of it (see newly added 9-9-1D). Notice her interpretation of the casebook play, exactly as it was written last year. It's the opposite of what the case book says this year.


Quote:
(1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court.
A1's throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1.
A2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in
the backcourt.
Struckoff Answer last year: No violation, play on. The provision in 9-9-3 permits the play.
Team control is established when A2 gains possession and lands in the
backcourt.

Casebook this year - Backcourt violation on A. Throw-in ends on touch by B1, A2 gains player and team control in the air after having left the floor from Team A's frontcourt, therefore having frontcourt status.

Question for me is what if the exact same thing happens but by B2?

(
Quote:
2) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team
B's frontcourt).
A1's throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1.
B2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in
the backcourt.
Struckoff's answer last year was it was "not" a violation....Does the new rule now make it a violation on B2 as well or is the defense given special consideration as in rule 9-9-3 or since the throw-in is now over on the "legal touch" is it a violation?
__________________
Do you really think it matters, Eddy?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 01:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
Struckoff's answer last year was it was "not" a violation....Does the new rule now make it a violation on B2 as well or is the defense given special consideration as in rule 9-9-3 or since the throw-in is now over on the "legal touch" is it a violation?
Looking at the text, I would say that it also applies to B2 since the only exception is granted to the player who initially touch the ball.

Violation!
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 01:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by truerookie
Looking at the text, I would say that it also applies to B2 since the only exception is granted to the player who initially touch the ball.

Violation!
That's what I think as well and hope is the consensus...I do remember this being a long, drawn-out topic last year and maybe the new "end of throw-in rule" will clear this up.

It is nice to see that they acted on it at the Fed and took some of our concerns to heart and have appeared to address them.
__________________
Do you really think it matters, Eddy?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 01:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

Quote:
Originally Posted by SITCH
(1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their front court.
A1's throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1.
A2 jumps from their frontcourt, catches the ball in the air and lands in
the backcourt.
Struckoff's answer last year was it was "not" a violation....Does the new rule now make it a violation on B2 as well or is the defense given special consideration as in rule 9-9-3 or since the throw-in is now over on the "legal touch" is it a violation?
Did she specifically say it was "not" a violation, specifically to that sitch? Or are you extrapolating?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 01:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
That's what I think as well and hope is the consensus...I do remember this being a long, drawn-out topic last year and maybe the new "end of throw-in rule" will clear this up.

It is nice to see that they acted on it at the Fed and took some of our concerns to heart and have appeared to address them.
Agreed
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 01:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
Did she specifically say it was "not" a violation, specifically to that sitch? Or are you extrapolating?
Exact wording was -

"same as #1" which stated -
Quote:
No violation, play on. The provision in 9-9-3 permits the play.
Team control is established when A2 gains possession and lands in the
backcourt.
I'm sure meaning you should insert B2 for A2, but meaning there was no violation....which I believe should change now based on the fact that a throw in ends on a legal touching.

I'll post last year's thread as soon as I find it....

Here it is--

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...322#post394322
__________________
Do you really think it matters, Eddy?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 02:00pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by RushmoreRef
Question for me is what if the exact same thing happens but by B2?

Struckoff's answer last year was it was "not" a violation....Does the new rule now make it a violation on B2 as well or is the defense given special consideration as in rule 9-9-3 or since the throw-in is now over on the "legal touch" is it a violation?
http://nfhs.org/web/2007/10/200708_b...s_interpr.aspx

See situation #7.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Thanks so much, should be a lot shorter thread this time around and easier to understand.
__________________
Do you really think it matters, Eddy?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 02:26pm
rfp rfp is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 98
Why isn't this covered by the exception allowing the defending team to make a defensive play which would otherwise result in a backcourt violation?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 02:34pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfp
Why isn't this covered by the exception allowing the defending team to make a defensive play which would otherwise result in a backcourt violation?
That's the purpuse of the ruling - the exception would apply only to B1, because the exception only applies during a throw-in. Since B1 tipped it, the throw-in is over, and thus, the throw-in exception is over.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 09:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfp
Why isn't this covered by the exception allowing the defending team to make a defensive play which would otherwise result in a backcourt violation?
It should be, but the NFHS is a bit screwy. They are having some issues defining what exactly constitutes a defensive player.

Note:
M&M, you are talking about the wrong exception. You answered for the "during a throw-in" exception, while rfp was inquiring about the "defensive player" exception. Apples to oranges.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 10:22pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
It should be, but the NFHS is a bit screwy. They are having some issues defining what exactly constitutes a defensive player.
Nope, they aren't. You are.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 02, 2007, 11:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Nope, they aren't. You are.
That may be true too.
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
Case book 5.3.3 phansen Football 7 Wed Dec 13, 2006 06:06pm
Case Book 10.5.3 Sit. B ?? Buckeyes Football 2 Sun Aug 08, 2004 07:52pm
Case Book 10.3.6 APHP Basketball 3 Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:43pm
Case Book fletch_irwin_m Basketball 5 Sat Feb 08, 2003 02:40pm
Case book 4.19.8 B Danvrapp Basketball 6 Mon Jan 14, 2002 04:26pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1