My partner made this call...

A1 scores a layup from a half court set. Many players are in the lane at the time.

As ball passes through the net, B1 slaps the ball (not too hard, but obviously ticked off that she got beat on D)

My partner gave B1 a delay of game warning. I have never seen the warning called this way, what do you guys think about calling the delay warning on the team about to inbound the ball?

Other officials have told me that my partner should have just started the 5 count when B1 slapped the ball since it was at her disposal.

There is not a great deal of room in this gym, so it's not like the ball went flying far away from the baseline, but in a large gym, the ball could roll very far away in a situation like this. Do you start the 5 count? Call time until you can place the ball at the disposal of team B? Or call the delay of game warning (or T, if 2nd violation)?

I've never seen it cal1led this way, and I don't k1now why you'd want to. 2The 5 second count would serve the purpose of st1opping this kind of nonsense, wouldn't it?

Weird call. Delay of game is supposed to punish you when you delay the "other team," not your own. Let the 5-second call do it's job on this situation.

Z

Was the team that got the warning ahead? Late in the game? Might their actions have cost the other team some valuable time? Issue the warning or blow the whistle and stop the clock so as not to penalize the team trying to catch up.

By rule, you cannot call this delay on the team about to inbound the ball. You should start your 5 second count because that player had the opportunity to take the ball OOB. However, you can call a T for preventing the ball from being put promptly into play, if you want. There is no legal warning that can be a part of this call, however. (NF rules)

slaps the ball not too hard. I am going to ignore it. Its not like she's doing it every time. I will start the count when they ready for the throwin.

Start the count, no delay warning.

I disagree with the "by rule" portion. Nothing in 4-46 or 10-1-5d says "by the team that just scored."

I do agree that it would be a rare call, and was probably properly handled in the original situation.

Bob - the word "interfering" is the key to me. The team entitled to the ball cannot "interfere" with the ball being put into play because when their player touches it, it is at their disposal. You cannot "interfere" with yourself. The term implies the ball was touched by the team not entitled to it because only they can "interfere" with a team's ability to put the ball promptly into play, which is the rule.

Bob,how about R10-3-7a?

JR - I think you may be confusing two points. bob was trying to make the point that the rule does not indicate that you could not call a legal delay warning against the team entitled to the ball under the rules dealing specifically with interfering with the ball after a basket. My point there was that a team could not "interfere" with itself, and that the implication was you could only invoke this rule against the team not entitled to the ball. After all, if you could make the case that a team could interfere with itself, then you would have a foul if A2 bumped A1 while shooting and caused the shot to miss. OK - that's a stretch, but not by much, actually.

Then, I made the point that under the player technical rule (the one you quoted), you might call a T if their hit of the ball knocked it away, but I still don't think you could invoke that since it is at their disposal at that point and you are in your 5 second count, so it really doesn't delay the game under the intent of that rule.

There - now it's clear as mud. ;)

Yup,I get it now!:o

I don't know if we should say that the ball is at her team's disposal.

We allow time outs in this situation by A, so I don't think we should stretch disposal out to the basket (usually teams immediately take it OOB, so this issue doesn't arise).

IMO, the correct thing is the delay warning for interference, 10-1-5d.

I know many here don't agree with the interpretation, but my reasoning is in-line with [Dick Knox's] interpretation regarding a player never taking the ball OOB and then making a "throw-in."


[Edited by Slider on Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:33 PM]

When the ball is on the floor and B is making no effort to pick it up and inbound it, I begin my count.

When the ball is in the hands of a member of the throwing team and he doesn't step OOB, I begin my count.

When the ball is at the disposal and the throwing team bats the ball, I begin my count.

How do you reconcile that with your support for [Dick Knox's] interpretation (delay warning) for a player who never goes OOB for a throw-in?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 9th, 2002 at 07:34 PM]

I apologize for joining this thread so late, BUT has I have said in a thread earlier this past Fall (and we all know the one), this is NOT a delay of game warning no matter what Dick Knox says. And I refuse to impose an incorrect rules interpretation no matter who makes the interpretation. The ball is at the disposable of Team B, start the five second throw-in count.


Quoting:

BktBallRef: When the ball is on the floor and B is making no effort to pick it up and inbound it, I begin my count.

When the ball is in the hands of a member of the throwing team and he doesn't step OOB, I begin my count.

When the ball is at the disposal and the throwing team bats the ball, I begin my count.

So, does that mean you ignore interpretations from NFHS if you disagree with them?

And, if you do ignore ANY interpretation that you disagree with, does that mean all other officials get to decide which interpretations they agree with, and only enforce the ones they agree with?

Finally, no one is asking you to follow Mr. Knox's interpretation. But, he has as much credibility as you in these matters; probably more due to his time at NFHS. So, many of us will follow Mr. Knox's guidance.

In this matter I think his guidance is based on sound reasoning.

Dick is wrong! I am sorry that he is wrong but it is a fact. Dick's interpretation of this rule cannot be defended by rule. As soon as I finish the letter that I started earlier in the school season on the orignal thread, I will mail it to both Mary Struckhoff and Dick. Every rules interpreter as well as two former members of the NFHS Rules Committee and one current member of the Rules Committee have agreed with my interpretation of the delay of game warning that has been discussed in this thread and the thread the was posted earlier this school year. Even Mary Struckhoff's intepretation was the same as mine. Remember, we cannot have different interpretations in different states. There can be only one correct interpretation and it has to be the same in every state.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that this is the state by state interpretation process:

The state interpreter makes a judgement on a request for a ruling from his state.

If the state interpreter feels the need, he/she asks NFHS for an interpretation.

The requests to NFHS may be answered by different people, so some states may get different NFHS interpretations for the same situation.

Bottom line you may have many different, but valid interpretations on a state by state basis (unless or until there is a Case Book play, Bulletin, or an official Interpretation posted by NFHS).

Maybe you do - we don't. I a player on a team who is entitled to the ball in that situation slaps the ball, that player has had the opportunity to grab the ball and take it OOB for the throw-in but chose not to. That's my definition of "at the disposal."

Quote:

IMO, the correct thing is the delay warning for interference, 10-1-5d.

As I stated earlier in this thread, a team cannot "interfere" with it's own opportunity, and I still haven't read any logical argument to contradict this.

First, I should say that I have never ventured into the depths of the old threads in question.

Yet, I will try this anyway:

The ball is not at the thrower's disposal if it drops straight down from the basket. That is not near the endline as the rules require. Do you start your count when a player first picks the ball out of the basket?

So, when a player bats a ball from the basket after a goal, they never had the ball at their disposal.

Let's say you have terrible mechanics, and you like to throw the ball to the in-bounder from 6 feet away IB. A1 is waiting for the ball. You throw towards A1, but A2 purposely blocks your pass while standing 5 feet IB, the ball rolls across the floor, away from A1.

Do you start a 5 second count?

I'm guessing you would issue a T on A2 for interfering with your "pass", a delay of game T.

In this thread, we issue a warning for interfering with the ball after a goal; a T if they do it again.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that this is the state by state interpretation process:

The state interpreter makes a judgement on a request for a ruling from his state.

If the state interpreter feels the need, he/she asks NFHS for an interpretation.

The requests to NFHS may be answered by different people, so some states may get different NFHS interpretations for the same situation.

Bottom line you may have many different, but valid interpretations on a state by state basis (unless or until there is a Case Book play, Bulletin, or an official Interpretation posted by NFHS). [/B][/QUOTE]Slider,I can't really correct you on the above.I'm just a little puzzled,though,why you would then insist in another response that the correct call has to be a warning followed by a T?That ruling was issued for North Carolina only by Dick Knox.It also covered a specific case where the team throwing the ball in didn't even attempt to make a legal throw-in.They just put the ball in play.In this case,they still have 5 seconds to make the throw-in.I really don't know if the first ruling would cover this case,too.In your own words above,it also wouldn't necessarily apply to Ohio for Mark T. DeNucci,or to Oregon for Mark Padgett-unless they've been instructed by their state to specifically call it that way.This rule has a grey area in it for most states.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 10th, 2002 at 04:13 PM]

I don't think I insisted; I am trying to persuade people to view this as an opportunity for a warning--IMO, that is the way most consistent with the ways we handle other similar situations.

If someone shows me a shred of evidence that a ball 5 feet or more IB away from the endline is at disposal, I will change my mind.

Heck, if you can show me that any ball IB is at disposal, I will be impressed. <b>A ball at disposal is live: You can't have a live ball on the floor, take it OOB, then make a throw-in.</b>

[Edited by Slider on Feb 10th, 2002 at 06:00 PM]

Quote:

Originally posted by Slider If someone shows me a shred of evidence that a ball 5 feet or more IB away from the endline is at disposal, I will change my mind. [Heck, if you can show me that a ball IB is at disposal, I will be impressed.] [Edited by Slider on Feb 10th, 2002 at 05:05 PM]

In one of your responses above, you state "That is not near the endline as the rules require." Please state your rule(s) reference for this statement.

Now - as to the ball "being at the disposal" phrase, to use the logic implied in your post here, not considering the ball to be "at the disposal" due to its distance from the endline, then it would follow that if the ball just came out of the basket and it just lay there with no one touching it or picking it up, you would never start your 5 second count. You know that cannot be. There is a point when you have to rule that the player had the opportunity to take the ball OOB. As I stated before, if that player bats the ball instead, they have chosen not to take it OOB when they could have and the 5 second count should start at that point. And really, is there anyone out there who, after A1 picks up the ball to start taking it OOB would grant team B a timeout? Nobody I know.

As to your case where you are making a bounce pass to A1 to inbound (BTW - there are situations where bouncing the ball to him from 6 feet away is now perfectly proper mechanics) and A2 intentionally deflects your pass - I have never had this happen, but I would just start the 5 second count. I don't view this as the same as a player not promptly giving me the ball following a call with which they didn't like, which is the most common use of the delay technical. Not only that, but if you are bouncing the ball to the inbounder (I refuse to use the NF term "thrower-in" - it makes me want to "thrower-up"), you most probably have a spot throw-in. The delay warning system only applies to throw-ins following a score, so if you use the "A2 intentionally deflecting your pass" case you mentioned, unless it was for a throw-in following a score, you (if you used your rule about not starting the 5 second count, but considering it a delay) could not, by rule, issue a warning, but would either have a no call or a T.

Mark - you can interfere with yourself - but the Pope says that you'll go blind :)

The wording of 6.1.2B "Comment" says it is the throw-in teams responsibility to secure the ball if it is near the endline.

6.1.2B also has this juicy sentence, "If the covering official judges the ball to be at the thrower's disposal, he/she starts the count and <b>the ball becomes live.</b>"

As, I added to my post above, it makes no sense to have a live ball IB on the court for a throw-in: Can the defense pick it up (it is past the plane)?

Now, if a team does ignore an IB ball (near the end-line), I will place the ball OOB and start counting. If it is an attempt to delay (say to run out the clock), I will T them for delay.

Earlier in this thread BktBallRef gave the criteria for starting the five second count for a throw-in. I will post them again:

Quoting:

BktBallRef: When the ball is on the floor and B is making no effort to pick it up and inbound it, I begin my count.

When the ball is in the hands of a member of the throwing team and he doesn't step OOB, I begin my count.

When the ball is at the disposal and the throwing team bats the ball, I begin my count.


In the play that started this thread, when B1 slapped the ball rather than grab it and take it out of bounds to start her team's throw-in, the ball became at the disposal of Team B. The covering official should start his five second count, if B1's slapping of the ball made it difficult for her or one of her teammates to recover the ball, too bad, and the official should not stop the clock to allow a player from Team B to recover the ball. B1 made a stupid decision and has to live with it. The official should not issue any type of delay of game warning because B1's action does not warrant it. B1 is only guilty of stupidity.


Addressing the ruling by one State Assn. as opposed to another State Assn. There can only be one interpretation for the whole country because the rule is the same for the whole country. I can tell you from personal experience, that there are state interpreters that have made incorrect interpretations because they did not know what the rule book said. One year, the MichiganHSAA interpreter said that a team could not substitute before the first free throw of a technical foul. He flat out told me that the rules said he was right and that I was wrong. It took emails by me to him and the NFHS Rules Editor to convince him.

This year when the NFHS posted the 2001-02 Basketball Rules Interpretations on the NFHS website, the Ruling for Situation 18 was incorrect, and when I emailed Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox, they told me that the Ruling was correct and I was wrong. It took a second email to them telling them that the there was already a Casebook Play that contradicted the Ruling for Situation 18, before they agreed with me and corrected the Ruling.

Did you make a salient, new point for this thread in all that?

Slider,the last sentence of the "comment" that you are referencing states-"The covering official shall start his/her throw-in count when it is determined the ball is available".That's a very relevant statement.It goes hand-in-hand with your comments above.This casebook play is pretty clear.It states that you can have a live ball IB in this instance.The play should be called the way BBref stated.Btw,what rule allows you to T them for delay without warning them first-if you decided to go that route?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 10th, 2002 at 08:36 PM]

I must be losing it, because I don't see IB mentioned anywhere in this case 6.1.2B

As for the delay T, that would be more along the lines of 10-1-5b (there is no warning for that).

But, all that is besides the point, how do you let the thrower touch a live ball IB, and then take it OOB, isn't that some kind of violation?

Also, say the ball goes through the bucket on B2's shot, A1 and B1 are near by. Official sees disposal, starts count, live ball, B1 beats A1 to ball and scores bucket, what is your call?

1)CB6-1-2b states that the ball is bouncing close to the end line,and if the covering official judges that it is at the thrower's disposal,they start the count and the ball becomes alive.Very straightforward-you now have a live ball IB,n'est-ce-pas?
2)-RE:delay T--the team has 5 seconds to throw the ball IB from the time it is at their disposal.The comment in CB6-1-2b covers the exact situation.If they want to run 5 seconds off the clock,they can legally do so.It's simply a violation after 5 seconds.If the quarter ends in that 5-second span,they haven't violated any rule.How can you T them?
3)If there is no confusion on the play where B1 scores again,IMO,I'd call a T-using the principles of CB10-1-8.This is a completely different play than the one we are discussing,though.I don't think it's relevant at all.

Perhaps they mean close to endline, but OOB, eh?

Check the Simplified & Illustrated 6-1-2b(2), doesn't it seem odd that they put the ball OOB before saying it was at disposal?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 10th, 2002 at 11:02 PM]

Because we're talking about two completely different situations. Other than that, Padgett and Jurassic Ref have bent over backwards trying to explain this to you, I don't plan to waste my time repeating what they've already said.

Of course, you are right.

Ball falls down straight from net, I pass it up court.

Ball falls down straight from net, I bat it up court.

Completely different, my mistake.

Good! Glad you finally got it straight.

BTW, where did you read that he batted "it up court?"

Nevermind.

So, are you saying we need to rule differently based on which way the bat goes? What is the proper bat "angle" that starts the throw-in count?

The reference "close to the endline" is taken by me to mean not any further from the endline than a foot or two toward the free throw line or sideline from a spot directly under the basket - in other words, where the ball would normally fall and be for a moment after a made basket. I believe that reference is there to cover the instance when a ball goes through the basket, then, still untouched, bounces away from the basket area and/or the endline. We have all seen this happen.

As to your question on what to do if B1 beats A1 to the ball and puts it in the basket - c'mon now, why are you even saying that? I guess it's to emphasize your point about the ball being live. Just because the ball is live, doesn't mean there never are restrictions on who can do what to it. The ball is live when you toss for the opening jump before it is tapped; it's live when held OOB on a throw-in; it's live when at the disposal of the free thrower, etc. All of those situations have restrictions.

BTW - love your signature.

And there are no restrictions that apply to a ball at disposal while it is still IB on the court (that I am aware of).

Can the defense steal it from the in-bounder before he gets OOB? Can the in-bounder be called for traveling while moving OOB? And, no one has yet answered the question of isn't it a violation to take a live ball OOB?

Why deal with all those unknowns when you can whistle it dead (if it stayed IB after a bat), tell them don't do that again or you get a T, have them take it OOB, then make it live with the known restrictions, and move on.

Again, I encourage you to look at the Simplified & Illustrated 6-1-2b(2) and see that the ball is OOB before they declare it at disposal after a goal. In the 6-1-2b(1) picture when the ball is still in the court after going through the net, they don't consider that the disposal point. Food for thought.

Well, the horse is probably dead now, so I'll quit unless someone says something brilliant.

Thanks for the signature line (guess if I was I nice guy I would have asked you first). Coincidentally stumbled upon that sentence today, and just had to have it - :)

Slider

Start the five and let it fall where it may. I don't think a delay is the right call.

Yes there is - it's the original rule we're discussing about delay.



No, that's a delay warning



No - but this is a better question, because he is "holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds" so he has player control. I guess this is one of those times the intent and spirit of the rule is different than the letter of the rule.



Same answer on this one.

I must admit what you have done is pointed out the need (once again) for the NF to clean up the language in the rules.

You're welcome. I notice you are not the only one using former statements of mine as a signature. Maybe I should research the copyright laws and ask for royalties. ;)

Perhaps if they do address the non-OOB throw-in issue, they will change the wording on disposal; I can dream can't I - :)

Slider, please listen to what Mark, BktBallRef, and I have been trying to tell you. We know what we are talking about and have quoted rule book and casebook plays that support what we have been telling you.

Mark T. you really put me in a bind, all 3 of you appear on my top 5 list of gurus, so lets look at the tally (btw, I worked the Florida elections):


For Violation: DeNucci

Neutralized:
BktBallRef (Knox won't support his interp. here)
Padgett (he's about to crumble, I can feel it, and the rest of his resistance is netralized by MY vote)

For Warning: bob jenkins

---------------------

We have a tie!!!!

But wait, we haven't received our vote from "mick" county; what is his opinion?

mick, it is all up to you, you get to play Supreme Court in this debacle.

Sorry to put you on the spot, but we all have to take sides one day. The country awaits your decision.

Lets go back to the basics as we look at this play. A1 beats B1 on a drive to the basket and scores on a layup. B1 is miffed that he got beat by A1 and as A1's field goal attemp is clearing the bottom of the net, B1 slaps the ball in anger instead of grabbing the ball so as to start the throw-in procedure.

If B1 had grabbed the ball and had done any of the following:

1) Stepped directly out-of-bounds (behind the endline) with the ball.

2) Handed or passed the ball to a B2, who was already out-of-bounds (behind the endline).

The ball would have been at the disposal of Team B for a throw-in at the time B1 or B2 had possession of the ball out-of-bounds, and the throw-in would started at that time.

B1 did a stupid thing. His action of slapping the ball indicated to the Trail official that he was starting the throw-in at the moment he slapped the ball. The rules and casebook plays support the starting of the five second count at the time that B1 slapped the ball. In fact this is the only correct procedure. I am not going to quote rules and casebook plays here because I have already done that in one other thread and others have already done that in this thread. But most importantly, this is not a delay of game warning situation for interfering with the ball after a made field goal or free throw. The history behind the inception of this rule has always been that it is a infraction of the rules by the team that had just scored and not by the team who was going to make the throw-in. Any attempt to charge the team making the throwin with an infraction of this rule is wrong.

Hey Mark, there were so many rules quoted I guess I missed
the NF rule/case play/comics/bulletin/interp that states the delay warning after a made field goal can only apply to
the team who just scored. Thanks.

And, I missed the one that unambiguously says disposal can begin inbounds. Don't hold your breath Dan.

Yeah, I know. But I'm an optimist.

Slider,

<i>As ball passes through the net, B1 slaps the ball (not too hard, but obviously ticked off that she got beat on D) </i>

I'm envisioning a non-unsporting act.

As usual, when the Team that gets to throw the ball in touches the ball in bounds, I get to choose whether I start my count, or not. I get to judge "at disposal, or not".
The rules are written, or not, to allow me that choice.

I think I have three choices depending on my interpretation of the player's intent. <li>I can do nothing if the player is mildly upset with herself.<li>I can start the count immediately, if the player is hoping for some public recognition of her disgust. <li>I can "T" an unsporting act for a clearly improper reaction.

mick

Mick,

You have hit the nail on the head. Referees are not robots. We are there to use out judgement. If the slapping of the ball is considered (by the individual referee, in the particular situation) to be an unsportsmanlike act - then by all means, call a technical foul for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

If the referee feels that it was not an unsportsmanlike act, but is wasting time, then start the five second count.

If the referee feels that the player lost control of the ball, whilst attempting to pick it up - call nothing, maybe stop the clock to allow the team to retrieve the ball.

This is the wonder of being a sentient being - we can think and make judgements according to specific situations.

I agree with everything that has been posted here so far. You can have a T, 5-second count, or nothing - but the T can't be for delay of game, only for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

Then I shall use my judgement to consider it not at disposal in these situations; unless it rolls OOB near the endline.

I agree that the bat of the ball may be an unsporting act deserving an automatic T depending on how the girl bats it.

If I don't T, and no one picks it up IB, I will always place it OOB near the endline (perhaps after an interference warning), and then start my count.

Thanks for answering my call for help - :)

For all of you who think that the interfering with that ball after a successful score applies to both teams. The warning was adopted to address the problem of the scoring team iterfering with the ball so as to keep the non-scoring team from making a quick throw-in pass. At no time was it ever considered to be applied to the team who is making the throw-in. It is impossible for the throw-in team to interfer with its own throw-in. If my memory serves me correctly, Dick Knox was on the Rules Committee when the rule was adopted and might have been the Chairman too. I heard Dick Schindler (Rules Editor at the time) speak on this rule change at the IAABO Fall Rules Interpreters Meeting. The entire discussion revolved around the scoring team interfering with the ball after it had scored. This is the second thread that I have addressed concerning this particular rule and the second time that I have relayed the information that Dick Schindler gave to the IAABO Interpreters. It does NOT apply to the scoring team and the non-scoring team CANNOT interfer with its own throw-in. We get ourselves into trouble by trying to apply rules to situations for which they do not apply.

Yes, yes, of course, of course. Why didn't we mere mortals
think of that. Of course, if it was that simple why didn't
"the powers that be" think to limit the warning and
subsequent T to the scoring team only by putting it in the
rule? BTW, you seemed to have dropped quite a few names
here, don't forget to pick them up on your way out.

Now Mark, maybe you are privvy to some back-room discussions
concerning a kick ball. Is it possible for a member of
the team that has control of the ball to actually violate
by kicking? This has been bothering me for a while, please,
do tell us.

DAN!!! Don't you start on me, too!!

I am not dropping any names. The NFHS and NCAA Men's rules editors have addressed the IAABO Fall Interpreters Conference for years. They discuss the new rules changes and answer questions concerning these changes as well as answer questions concerning other rules. Having heard the Rules Editor speak directly to the new rules changes is very enlightening. I am sorry that you are offended that I would relay information that was given to a large group of interpreters by the Rules Editor himself.

There is not a Division I men's or women's official that does not hear Ed Bilik or Barb Jacobs speak at the regional meetings in October. These officials sometimes work a Division III game with two officials who only work at the Division III level. If the Div. I official relays information that they get from Ed or Barb at these meetings, should we accuse these officials of name dropping? I think not.

As a member of IAABO I have had the opporturnity to work on committees with some of the top rules people in the country. I am sorry that I get to talk to these people and you do not. Maybe you should join IAABO.

Geeze Mark, stay on the topic will ya? DI, DII and DII use
NCAA rules, not NFHS rules and as we all know there are no
warnings for delay in the NCAA rules. So there are 2
questions on the table for you, please answer at least one
of them.

Why don't the NFHS rules specify warning for delay after a
made basket for the scoring team only?

Is it possible for a member of the team in control of the
ball (the offensive team) to violate by kicking?

BTW, I'm a member in good standing of IAABO and I've been to
an IAABO camp, if that means anything.

LOL! I would never start on you, young grasshopper, for I
know you have mastered the art of the T! :eek:

This came up a few weeks ago. I was R for the co-rec IM basketball championship game. A1 shot, long rebound, and A2 got a hand on the ball in the air. With no control, he comes down to the ground (so no travel call, although I wish that's what I had called) and starts bobbling the ball. One of the bounces goes off of his leg (leg didn't move), and I called a kick violation (obviously not a kick, but I whistled, froze, and went with the kick).

A3 and A4 - both fellow officials (as is A2 - he didn't say anything) go apesh*t that "there's no such thing as an offensive kick!" (After checking our special rules addendum (to NFHS), I realized that there is a note in our book saying there is no such thing as an offensive kick). I apologized for screwing up our rules, but stood by the fact that a member of team A could have a kick violation. (Technically in the original case, A2 was neither on offense or defense, since team control is lost on a shot.)

I agree that a kick on the "offensive" team is rare. However, I thought up one (and now have a second) example:

(1) A1 throws a long pass to A2, with B1 between the two. With the ball in the air, A3 realizes that B1 will intercept the pass, but A3 cannot reach the ball in time, so A3 kicks the ball to prevent a steal and a fast break.

Violation - A3 gained an illegal advantage in kicking the ball.

(2) A1 is dribbling upcourt. There's heavy pressure, and A1 feels that a pass would be intercepted, so he kicks the ball into the air, over B's heads, to A2 who scores an easy layup.

Violation - it doesn't matter that A has the ball, soccer is the game of feet and legs.

BTW, in this case of the OOB "delay," I say you just start counting when B1 slaps the ball. :)

Dan_ref:

Team A scores. Team B is entitled to a throw-in anywhere along the endline in its backcourt. How can Team B interfere with the ball on its throw-in? That is a rhetorical question. The answer is: It cannot interfere with the ball on its throw-in.

As I stated before, the rule was adopted because officials were all over the spectrum on how to handle the situation when Team A interfered with the ball after it had just scored. Some officials would tell Team A to stop being naughty lads or lassies. Some officials were correctly charging the offending player on Team A a technical foul for delay of game. It was my opinion and that of many interpreters that the delay of technical foul was the correct way to handle this situation. So the NFHS finally decided something had to be done and adopted the rule that we now see in the rules.

The college scenario that I described is applicable to your complaint of me dropping names. Who cares if the scenario I use involves college officials or high school officials, some of whom are lucky enough to hear the Rules Editor speak every year.

I would like to once again to ask you to join IAABO. Just email me through Officiating.com or at [email protected] and I will get you an application for membership in IAABO. In fact I would like to extend my invitation to all officials who are not members of IAABO to join it. You can go to the IAABO website and download an application form.

Its getting late and I need to get my beauty sleep (about ten years worht). Good night everybody.

Mark, are you having trouble with the English language
tonight? I already said I am an IAABO member. Further,
you keep repeating the same answer ("because I said so",
otherwise known as proof by vigorous declaration). I
know why the rule was put in the NF book. I also know that
it does not explicitely exclude warning the scoring team.
If this was the well thought out answer to a well known
problem why was it so poorly worded?

I apologize about not seeing your membership in IAABO. Then I suggest that you talk with your Board interpreter about this rule.

I would say that in the league you work you should
not start the count until B1 slaps A1! :D

I realize that the offensive team can kick, believe it or
not I had one last night. The ball was loose on the floor,
it looked like a rugby scrum, and A1 kicked the ball out
to A2. It's just that Mark D knows where I'm going with
the question and is refusing to answer it.

I guess you're not gonna answer the questions.

It's ridiculous that this post has surpassed 5 pages.
 

I wouldn't want you to miss such a play.

6.1.2 SITUATION B: Team A has just scored a goal. The ball is bouncing close to the end line when: (a) A1 calls for a time-out; or (b) A1 contacts B1.
Ruling: In order to rule correctly, it depends on whether the bouncing ball is judged to be at the thrower's disposal. If the covering official judges it is at the thrower's disposal, he/she would start the count and the ball becomes live. In this case, in (a) no time-out is granted and the foul in (b) is penalized. If the ball is not at the thrower's disposal, the time-out is granted in (a) and the contact in (b) is ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant. (4-4-7d)
Comment: In this situation, the covering official must give the new throw-in team a moment or two to recognize it is their ball for a throw-in and get a player into the area to pick up the ball. If the ball is near the end line, it is the throw-in team's responsibility to secure it and throw-in from anywhere out of bounds along the end line. The covering official shall start his/her throw-in count when it is determined the ball is available.

Clearly, in this play, the ball is bouncing inbounds. The ruleing is clear that if the official judges that the ball is at the thrower's disposal, the count begins and the ball is live. The play says nothing about the need for an official to pick the ball up and place it OOB, as Slider suggests. It's stupid to think that this is required.

BTW, Mr. Knox does not disagree with my interpretation of this play. When a member of the throwing team knocks the ball OOB, it is most definitely at the disposal of the thrower and it is now live. When a player for the throwing team picks the ball up and starts down the floor with it, without first going OOB, he has delayed in allowing the ball to become live.

As I stated earlier, two different situations.

Slider, when you first started posting here, I thought you had some rule smarts. I was wrong. :(

Here endeth the lesson.

Re: It's ridiculous that this post has surpassed 5 pages.
 

Well,there goes your butt from the "TOP FIVE LIST"!:eek:

Re: Re: It's ridiculous that this post has surpassed 5 pages.
 

Oh well, such is life. ;)

I can't imagine making anybody's "TOP FIVE LIST" by kissing their butt when they're wrong. :(

Re: Re: Re: It's ridiculous that this post has surpassed 5 pages.
 

Hey, you're in my top 5 list, and since I've never been
wrong... ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's ridiculous that this post has surpassed 5 pages.
 

Good! because I have no desire to kiss your butt!! :D

twisted the facts
 

Of course Mr. Knox doesn't disagree, because you have misrepresented the situation:

Please ask Mr. Knox whether a ball IB is at disposal. I would love to get an e-mail from him on this matter.

And, the case book play says near the end-line, but it does not say IB, is that UNAMBIGUOUS?.

The reason this has gone on 5 pages is that certain posters continue to repeat the same things over and over; and they (except Padgett) refuse to answer basic questions like: Isn't it a violation to carry a live ball OOB?

Re: twisted the facts
 

On a free throw,you have a live ball that is IB.The rules then state the restrictions that you are under-i.e.don't step over the line,10 seconds to shoot,stay in the semi-circle,don't kick the ball at the basket(that one's for Dan)etc.If it doesn't list a restriction,then you can legally do it.You can stand on your head to shoot,have unlimited foot movement-anything that you want to do,as long as it's not specifically listed as a violation or isn't unsportsmanlike.The probable reason that nobody ever listed that carrying a live ball OB is legal is that nobody thought it was necessary to do so until you came along.It was assumed-just like the cases above.Have you contacted your rules interpreter about this play?Seems to me that would be the logical thing to do.

Slider, I have a rules question for you.

Team A scores a field goal and is now trailing Team B by two points. The ball goes through the net and lands on the floor inbounds. The balls bounces up and down, with its height after each bounce following a damped sinusoidal curve, but that is besides the point, inbounds. Team B makes no attempt to pick up the ball and take it out-of-bounds for a throw-in. There is only ten seconds left in the game. You are the Trail official. Do you start a five second count because the ball is now at Team B's disposal for a throw-in?

Dan_ref, I am not sure what your question is, but I will defend my position vigorusly, because it is the correct position. I am sorry if my "take no prisnors style" offends some people. I study the rules, casebook plays, read as much in not all of the literature available, attend seminars given by some of the muckity mucks, and have made freinds with some of the muckity mucks. I think that my logic and defense of my positions stand for themselves and sound in rules, logic, and common sense (when appropriate).

I and the when appropriate to the common sense requirement, because all to often officials who are not (and all officials should be) rules proficient find themselves in a position where they do not know the applicable rule or do not understand the whys and hows of the rule so they use "common sense" and this gets them in even more trouble. Common sense has its place in officiating, but it does not substitute for rules knowledge.

Dang, I cannot type. The start of my last paragraph in my last post should read as follows:

I add the "when appropriate" to the common...

Don't worry about your typing Mark. Your real problems are
that you engage in debate without listening to the other
side and that your primary tactic is proof by vigorous
assertion (which does not mean you have a "take no
prisoners" style, it just means you continue to say the
same things over & over, in a loud voice). Here are the
questions, copied directly from our exchange last night:

Why don't the NFHS rules specify warning for delay after a
made basket for the scoring team only?

Is it possible for a member of the team in control of the
ball (the offensive team) to violate by kicking?

Re: twisted the facts
 

Uh-oh. Slider likes me. I must have gone over to the dark side ;)

JUST KIDDING, SLIDER!!!!!

No, because it is not at disposal for throw-in. If B does not pick it up and take it OOB immediately, I give the stop signal (stop the clock); put the ball on the endline OOB and start my count -- the clock is stopped so B did a very dumb thing.

I will also resond to Jurassic here; none of ways of putting the ball at disposal mention OB (we can ignore FTs, different animal), it is just assumed in 4-4-7 that it will be OOB. That is what is missing from 4-4-7, the clarification that disposal on throw-in has to be OOB.

Now, Mark, please answer my question: Is it not a violation for a player to carry a live ball OOB?

Re: Re: twisted the facts
 

No reason to worry, actually I gave you too much credit in that post, your reply to the question was in essence: "Yes it is a violation, but..."

No, because it is not at disposal for throw-in. If B does not pick it up and take it OOB immediately, I give the stop signal (stop the clock); put the ball on the endline OOB and start my count -- the clock is stopped so B did a very dumb thing.

I will also resond to Jurassic here; none of ways of putting the ball at disposal mention OB (we can ignore FTs, different animal), it is just assumed in 4-4-7 that it will be OOB. That is what is missing from 4-4-7, the clarification that disposal on throw-in has to be OOB.

Now, Mark, please answer my question: Is it not a violation for a player to carry a live ball OOB? [/B][/QUOTE]Slider,before you drive all of us loony,why don't you contact your local rules interpreter and get his opinion.Will you accept it if HE tells you that you are wrong?When you get an answer,be sure to let us know.Otherwise,you haven't found one person that agrees with your logic-so let it slide.

Of course,I still await Mark T's answer to Dan.:D

OK - here's a new slant (I think). In fact, it semi-supports some of what Slider has been saying - notice I said some ;) If A1 scores, and B1 promptly grabs the ball and starts to walk OOB to inbound, should you start your 5 second count as soon as he grabs the ball or should you wait until he gets OOB? Well, is it fair to start before he gets OOB? After all, he does not have the opportunity to legally inbound the ball until he gets OOB and he should have a full 5 seconds from the point at which he can legally inbound, plus - he is doing just what he is supposed to be doing - promptly taking the ball OOB.

If that is the case, then can team A legally get a timeout while he is walking and before he gets OOB? If you look at it this way, yes. "Disposal" wouldn't start until he gets OOB.

However, I think there is a difference in the case in which B1 ignores the ball, or bats the ball away. Even though he still cannot legally inbound the ball until he gets OOB with it, he had the opportunity to do just that and chose not to. In my feeble way of thinking, he should be penalized for that by losing some of his precious 5 second inbounding window and the count should start. The question here then becomes - should team A legally be able to get a timeout during that particular counting situation. I vote no. I'm not sure why, but it just sounds right to me.

I realize there is a dichotomy here, but sometimes my life is a dichotomy.

However - I'm sure we can all agree on the following:

1) The NF needs to establish a case to cover all of this
2) The NF needs to better define the term "disposal"
3) The NF should define whether or not a case ruling for a particular inquiry from a single state applies nationwide
4) The NF should change the possession penalty that exists as part of the technical foul rule

OOPS - just couldn't resist slipping that last one in :)

And - oh yeah - let's all agree to keep our posts on this board on a professional, not person, level. Thanks.

Of course I would abide by my interpreter's ruling, but I don't feel the need to get an interpretation on this. At the moment I am quite confident in my position.

And, I believe your last statement is false, I believe bob jenkins agrees with me. However, if I have misconstrued his post, and he doesn't agree with me, then indeed I would be worried about my position--and I would seriously consider changing it.

Not because it is bob, but because then I would be without any guru support (well Padgett is caving, I can hear it :-)

Slider - if I follow your "logic" correctly:

1. You post your opinion here and it is opposed by a majority of your peers.
2. You would accept the ruling of your interpreter, but feel that you don't need to ask, because you are right.

Isn't it fair to consider that there is a chance that you are incorrect in your judgement, and therefore the best course of action would be to ask your interpreter?

To me (and I'm sure other's here) your refusal to ask your interpreter about this situation is paramount to acknowledging that you are incorrect.

I'll make a deal with my "peers" (actually, I am not in their league):

If each one of them agrees to get an interpretation from their respective state's interpreters and post it here, I too will solicit an interpretation and post it here.

So, if Mark Padgett, Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., BktBallRef, and mick all go for this silly deal, I will too. I doubt that bob jenkins will go for it for the same reason that I don't need it.

Anyway, what happens when the interpretations differ, have we proved anything?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:06 PM]

Re: twisted the facts
 

Oh! So you're psychic? You know what was said in our converstaion. Wow! I understimated you. :(

Slider,
May I be the first to say, "I will not go to an interpreter." The Big Dogs on this board work just fine for me.
mick

Re: Re: twisted the facts
 

No, you changed the situation in that post, so I assumed you changed it in your conversation with Mr. Knox, i.e., you put the ball OOB (presumably near the endline).

Instead of either of us playing guessing games; Why not create a SITUATION on paper for Mr. Knox, and then post his ruling here. Or, give me his e-mail and I will ask him myself (and, YES, I will try to influence his ruling).

[Edited by Slider on Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:52 PM]

Good, it was an absurd idea. The Big Dogs work for me too.

Yes - see my signature ;)

BTW - your profile is almost blank. Where do you ref? How long have you reffed? At what levels have you reffed? I'm not trying to denigrate your validity, but it's nice to know the experience level of someone who is contributing so we can make that part of the context for dialogue. Thanks.

Those two almost sound contradictory. I will not post my resume here like some do; you can judge my statements in whatever context you like; but I will say that my focus is on NF rules.

The crux of the issue for NF is: Is it the intent of the rules that disposal may begin IB after a goal?

IMO, No, this leads to all kinds of absurd possibilities.

Now, does that mean you may NEVER start your count while the ball remains IB?

No, you may ethically do what you like since there is no clear guidance from NF.

---------------------------

Though I often appear to be saying what you can do; I am actually explaining a rules intent as I view it. They are two different things; and I apologize that I sometimes say you MUST do something.

I do not know why the NFHS rules do not specify the warning for interfering with the ball after the scoring of a goal. But I do know this the following. Before this rule was adopted by the NFHS, I think that it is a safe bet that rules interpreters all over the country debated for years over what to do about a player from Team A interfering with the ball immediately after Team A had scored a goal. I know that I debated about how to handle this problem myself many times. Many of those discussions were at IAABO Fall Interpreters conferences. I cannot ever remember the scenario of Team B interfering with the ball being considered. And I know for sure that Dick Schindler only discussed the application of this rule in terms of Team A interfering with the ball after it had just scored. Logic (not common sense) tells us that Team A is the only team to which the rule can be applied. Think about it, how can a team interfere with its own throw-in, it cannot.


The answer to your second question (Can a member of Team A who is in control of the ball commit a kicking the ball violation?) is simple. Yes. I am not sure how this question is applicable to our discussion, but I just answered your question.

Slider, I have been a basketball official for 31 years now, and for all of those years, every intepreter I have ever known, every time I have heard Dick Schindler, Mary Struckhoff, Hank Nichols, and Ed Bilik speak, and every rules clinic I have ever attended that dealt with throw-ins have stated that the if the ball is inbounds after a score by Team A and Team B refuses to pick up the ball to take it out-of-bounds for a throw-in, the official should start the throw-in count. The official should not stop the clock and administer the throw-in.

For what play are we to get an intepretation?

Good, when they put that on paper I'll be very happy.

BTW, I "just" thought of a question, if a player picks up a live ball IB and carries it OOB, isn't that a violation?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 14th, 2002 at 12:38 AM]

No, not if his team is entitled to a throw-in.

But then, hopefully, you already knew that.

Now, we are getting somewhere; Thank you for addressing this, but: Where is this exception to the OOB rule to be found? I interpret 9-3 to be for a live ball.

[On a "normal" throw-in the ball goes OOB dead, so the player does not cause a live ball to go OOB.]

Also, isn't it a violation for the in-bounder to be the first to touch the ball in bounds during a throw-in? Where is the exception for that violation?

[Edited by Slider on Feb 14th, 2002 at 02:57 AM]

This question is not meant to be mean spirited Slider, but how long have you been officiating. Your logic on this thread leads me to believe that you do not have a fundamental grasp of the rules and how they are to be interpreted, nor do you know how to look at a play and think logically at solving the problem.

4-41-2,3
A throw-in is a method of putting the ball in play from out of bounds.
The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.



You're very confused. What throw-in is not "normal?" The ball becomes live when it's at the thrower's disposal, no matter where the ball is.

No, it's not. It's a violation for the thrower to be the first player to touch the ball inbounds after the ball has been released, passed, on a throw-in. 7-6-1

You complain about everyone's unwillingness to answer your questions. It's because your questions make no sense.

Thank You, they always say that the definitions are the most important part of the Rules.

Throw-in is from OOB by definition, 4-41-2.

An abnormal throw-in is one that starts in-bounds.

Finally, I don't see the word AFTER in 7-6-1.

However, in 9-2-6 I see, [The thrower shall not:] "Touch the ball in the court before it touches or is touched by another player."

Where can I read about abnormal throw-ins in the rule book?

As far as 7-6-1 goes, I simply summarized the rule. Of course, the word after is part of my statement. Is it possible to touch the pass before it is released? If you pass the ball, and it's been released, the only way you can possibly touch it again is after it's been released. :confused:

Of course, since you live in the Twilight Zone, perhaps you can touch it before it's released. :)

Your argument is silly and pointless and I'm through discussing it.

7-6-1 says noting to contradict 9-2-6; and 9-2-6 says nothing about before, during, or after a pass. So that means it applies throughout the whole time of the throw-in.