Awarding points on a throw in

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Seems that the fed is applying 5-1-1...that only a touched ball can be scored during a throw-in.

How do you get that from the case plays posted (or from any other source)? Note that 5-1 deals with "goals". BI is "awarded points"; it's not a goal.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

How do you get that from the case plays posted (or from any other source)? Note that 5-1 deals with "goals". BI is "awarded points"; it's not a goal.

It seems strange that the fed only cites the touching part of BI, when it's a violation for an untouched ball to pass through the goal per 5-1-1. One could argue that the ball must be touched for an awarded goal to count, because there is nothing about contacting the basket in the case play.

The other citation has nothing to do with the OP.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

The other citation has nothing to do with the OP.

9.11.1 SITUATION D tells us that BI occurs without contacting the ball.

9.11.1 SITUATION C tells us BI can occur on a throw in. This is simply a consequece btw of the fact that BI can be called even when there is no shot. We all know a shot is illegal on a throw in.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

9.11.1 SITUATION D tells us that BI occurs without contacting the ball.

9.11.1 SITUATION C tells us BI can occur on a throw in. This is simply a consequece btw of the fact that BI can be called even when there is no shot. We all know a shot is illegal on a throw in.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I am simply pointing out that once again the way the fed puts the case play, that it is possible for someone to argue that the ball must be touched for the BI to be called during a throw-in.

We see play after play like this one, where a simple touches the ball or contacts the basket in the case play, would remove possible confusion that 5-1-1 could bring into the play.

Then again if they made the rules clear and the case plays more inclusive, this forum would serve no purpose.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Then again if they made the rules clear and the case plays more inclusive, this forum would serve no purpose.

You mean other than the baseball thread, political arguments, squirrel pictures, assorted gossip and other really important off-topic stuff that goes on of course.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You mean other than the baseball thread, political arguments, squirrel pictures, assorted gossip and other really important off-topic stuff that goes on of course.

That would be your special purpose, Nevin.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

That would be your special purpose, Nevin.

Nevin?

That's Mr. Nevin, sir, to you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I am simply pointing out that once again the way the fed puts the case play, that it is possible for someone to argue that the ball must be touched for the BI to be called during a throw-in.

By that logic we should not penalize a player who throws the ball OOB because there is no case book play for that simple, normal violation. People should be arguing that the ball must become OOB in some esoteric way in order for the officials to penalize it because clearly that is what the NFHS wants as evidenced by their provided case book rulings.

Now is that the line of thinking that you wish to follow?

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

By that logic we should not penalize a player who throws the ball OOB because there is no case book play for that simple, normal violation. People should be arguing that the ball must become OOB in some esoteric way in order for the officials to penalize it because clearly that is what the NFHS wants as evidenced by their provided case book rulings.

Now is that the line of thinking that you wish to follow?

Way to avoid quoting the important part of the post, the confusion that 5-1-1 brings that only a touched ball may be scored during a throw-in.

5-1-1 + a CP that only deals with touching the ball in the cylinder for BI = possible confusion.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Way to avoid quoting the important part of the post, the confusion that 5-1-1 brings that only a touched ball may be scored during a throw-in.

5-1-1 + a CP that only deals with touching the ball in the cylinder for BI = possible confusion.

5-1-1 has NOTHING to do with this play (or any other play that involves AWARDING points, as opposed to SCORING points).