JR, MTD, rainmaker, please allow me to share my favorite gif with you.
http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

I'll now resume my previous activity.
http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/popcorn.gif

Ben, the problem isn't that you are wrong. The problem is that you are so badly wrong on a very basic call that is completely rules-backed and you still absolutely refuse to admit it. Your lame response and continued denial above of something that is plainly and definitively written in the rules is proof of that. And it sureasheck isn't the first time for you either. That is sad. And very telling also. If you can't admit it when you are wrong, you will <b>never</b> get the whole officiating thing.

And btw, I leave moderating to the mods. That's their job. They've deleted a ton of my posts in the past when they felt that I went overboard. That's their job, not some clown tsk-tsking me for saying something that might have been blunt but was still <b>true</b>.

As I said, feel free to call whatever you feel like calling. Ignore the case book. You'll get exactly what you deserve.

I don't want any part of the previous discussion, but I did feel compelled to respond to this statement (for some reason).

The Casebook is an extension of the Rules Book. We all know that while, for the most part, the Rules Book is pretty clear when read in depth, there are some situations - or cases - where it is not 100% clear how a rule should be applied. The Casebook is the way the NFHS clarifies those situations.

It carries the same weight as the Rules Book, and is the official interpretation of the rules. To say that the Rules Book backs you up while the Casebook does not is reading more into the Rules Book than is there.

The analogy posted above by Mark is a good one - case law decided by the Supreme Court is law. You may even disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on any number of issues, but it doesn't change the fact that it is now enforceable law. You can petition the court - or in our case the NFHS - to change it's rulings, but until they do, we are all required to abide by the law as citizens/players and enforce the law as police officers/officials.

This is either arguement for arguement's sake, which is unfortunate, or a stubborn misunderstanding of what the Casebook actually is.

PS. By the way, I say this not as someone who is always correct - I've been wrong on my share of Rules, and others have corrected me here. That's why I'm here. I'm in my second year of serious officiating and have a lot to learn. But, one thing I do know is that when a clear Rules citation or Casebook citation is given, that's the end of the arguement.

That, in general, is the argument that was put forth by those (and I was one of them) who thought this should NOT be a violation.

The NFHS disagrees. Given their clarification by issuing a case play, I (and, I'd hope, you) now know how to call it.

If you think the case is "wrong", propose a rules change. At the very least, be clear here that you are discussing "what the rule should be" and not "what the rule is".

I guess I could and should do that. this is a pretty trivial play anyway. How many times will you see a player not even make a move toward the OOB line to throw it in. If NFHS wants a violation on that play, fine. There is a good point made about the supreme court law, but it is also weak on the NFHS part to not give or cite anywhere in the rule book that this case play is backed by. I found nowhere, where this play was supported. It seems like it was pulled out of thin air. Does that not bother anyone else?

Let me ask this question then. If you had no idea what the rule, oh excuse me, the casebook play on this was, what would your gut tell you to do on this play?

After this I"m leaving this alone cause it is such a trivial play that there are far better plays that should be discussed rather than one that you might see happen every once in a while.

Generally rules of sports are meant to be consistent and provide reasonable challenges and safety measures. Other than that they are pretty arbitrary. Your gut feel or even your view of what's fair or logical plays no part.

I would call a throw-in violation.
I don't understand why you have such a problem with this.
There are certain activities during a basketball game that must be done from a specified location. If that doesn't happen then the activity wasn't properly excuted, so that player violated the rules.

For example, a FT must be attempted from within the semi-circle, a jumper must stand within the proper half of the circle for the jump ball, a rebounder who is along the FT lane must take a position within one of the marked lane spaces.

All that you have to understand is that it is illegal for a player to attempt any of these activities from a location other than that specified in the rules.

That's not so hard.

My gut would tell me this is a violation. The team failed to take the ball OOB after a made basket and proceeded upcourt.

I don't get the arguement that it doesn't fit the intent of the rules at all. Not calling this a violation seems a violation the spirit and intent of the rules IMO.

Pulled out of thin air to call a violation for not taking the ball oob after a made basket???? WTF??

My gut tells me that the ball ALWAYS is to be taken oob after a made basket, and that if it isn't it's a violation. Seems like common sense to me!

Nope, it was exactly as I argued it should be before the NFHS agreed! :D

The rules say the team shall make a throwin from OOB after a made basket. If they don't, they've violated the rules. Not being OOB is only one way to violate the throwin rules.

As I said, this was the interpretation I had before the case play was published....team was entitled to a throwin and didn't execute it properly....violation.

Item (1):

You state that this is a trivial play. Just remember: "There are no small parts, just small actors." I don't remember who said this but it is an applicable quote. BECAUSE, the Rule is so clear on this play. For a throw-in to be a legal throw-in it must be made from behind the boundary line. In this play it was not. Even Mark, Jr. knew it was a violation without having to read the Casebook Play. If you haven't seen it very often then you have neither officiated for very long nor have you officiated very many games; especially at the jr. H.S. level, :D .


Item (2):

Now you are learning I hope>'


Item (3):

If you read the Ohio (I live in the State of Ohio; BUT I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I did stay at a Hoiday Inn Express last night, no Bonnie didn't throw me out of the house but she could quailfy for sainthood even though she is not Catholic) Revised Code, you will find the law, but you won't find Case Law. But if you read Case Law, you will find the approiate references to the Ohio Revised Code. Get use to sports rules being the same as the law.

The Rule states that for a throw-in to be legal it must be taken from behind the boundary line. The player in the OP did not make the throw-in from behind the boundary line as required. The Casebook Play gave an example of such a type of play that would be a violation of the Rule. And NO it was not pulled out of thin air or any bodily orifice, therefore it does not bother me. The Casebook Play RULING was made using the correct Rule reference.


Item (4):

Since this is a trivial play, one really doesn't need to make a gut (and I have a substantional gut, LOL) decision on this play. It is covered by Rule. Casebook Plays exist to show give expamples of how the Rules are to be applied.

I have been a H.S. official for 37 years and a college official for 34 years, that means I have accumulated (much to my saintly wife's consternation) a substantional (not unlike my gut) amount of books containing Rules and Casebook Plays. There are Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings that are not in the current publications that still are in effect because there has not been a rule change that would change the RULING in that Casebook Play or the Approved Ruling that is not in the current publication.

How does a young grasshopper like yourself aquire the knowledge that old geezers like JR, Peter Webb, BkbRef, and I have accumulated. Study every publication regarding the rules, casebook plays, approved rulings, and mechanics you can get your hands on. Such as all NFHS, NCAA, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA publications. If you can afford it become a member of Officiating.com, NASO, IAABO, and Eofficials.com and then read everything that these organizations have to offer. Even go to officiating camps and clinics. Finally, ask questions and listen to the answers. Seek out the best and the brightest. I am sure that the local officials associations have learned officials will answer your questions. Go to the horse's mouth if you want to have your questions answsered, such as the NFHS and NCAA Rules editors.

MTD, Sr.

No, it doesn't because you're wrong. The rule does exist but you simply refuse to believe it. Everyione single poster in this thread has told you that this is a violation, yet you're the one that's right. What the hell is wrong with that picture?

The Case Book is an extension of the Rule Book. The Case Book is clear. 9.2.2 is an extension of 9-2-2. You know it, we know it. But you're too damn prideful to admit that you're wrong.

Fine. Just continue down that path and you'll never improve.

OK, guys. Riddle me this. Team A scores. The ball comes through the basket where it is picked up by B1. B1 throws the ball to B2 who is standing about 10 feet or so upcourt from B1. Would you then blow your whistle claiming this is an "improper" inbound pass since B1 never went OOB, or would you continue your 5 second count, thinking B1 just wants B2 to take the ball OOB for the inbound pass and wait to see what B2 does?

IOW - when do you make the determination on whether or not a player's throwing of the ball to another player in this situation is which kind of play? What criteria do you use?

It would seem to me there is something ambiguous here. Yes, I know we use our judgment all game long but wouldn't it just make it easier to change the rule so they have 5 seconds to take it out and make the pass - period. You'd still get the violation and it would take all the guesswork out of the play.

Or what about when B1 grabs the ball, takes a step towards the end line, but never gets his foot all the way oob before throwing up court. Same deal.

Did you mean throwing up on the court? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/puke.gif