Did I mess this one up?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So if he has yet to step or attempted to step out of bounds for the use of a throw-in he has not violated any provision.

Also Rule 4 section 42 Art. 2 states:

A throw-in is a method of putting the ball in play FROM OUT OF BOUNDS. So it seems to me that since this player does not touch any part of the out of bounds area that he has not violated any throw-in provisions. I'm not trying to make anything up. To me, the rule book is like the bible, everybody is going to read the same words and interpret it in the way they see best fits. My interp of this play according to rules in which I have cited here, this is not a violation. If you interpret it differently then so be it. I don't believe the case book play to match the rules that are set therein.

I also went back and read the rule page citings that are given for this case play and it pertains to when you are awarded the ball OOB and the other pertains to running the endline after a made basket none of which make light of a player not stepping OOB and throwing the ball to a teammate.

You know, it is what it is, I don't believe I'm making anything up here. the casebook might not support me, but the rulebook does (consistency, huh). Nowhere does it state that a player has violated on this type of play. He must be out of bounds to establish, by definition, a throw-in, which he does not do here, therefore no provisions have been met nor have they been violated.

Jurassic it never ceases to fail or amaze me for that matter, that you go on the attack on a personal level. That shows your true colors I believe. If you're pissed with me, PM me and tell me privately. If you don't like what I have to say, fine. That is like a coach telling me I made a horrible call, I'll take a look at it and see what I had. I could be wrong but not as often as I am right. I guess its good that you are well respected around here in cyberspace because if it was any other person that said what he did to bgtg19 this thread would be locked up in a heartbeat. That was a total classless move to respond to him like that. You can keep attacking me forever as long as it is bball or officiating related, since you know everything about me, but don't go after a guy because you are pissed at me and then you are pissed at him for having my back against you. And you know what maybe you're right, maybe I haven't gotten this whole officiating thing yet, but I will one day. But I will always be able to go back and thank you for calling me stupid, which helps me out so much in my development as an official. Thanks.

BTaylor:

I do not know where you officiate. I do not know how long you have been officiating. BUT, it is obvious you do not have a very good grasp of the rules. The rules are quite clear, for a team to put the ball back into play, it must make it inbounds throw from out-of-bounds. If they do NOT, they have committed a throw-in violation. One of my personal friends is Peter Webb, a two time member of the NFHS Rule Committee and the foremost NFHS Rules person in the country (Mary Struckhoff cannot hold a candle to Peter when it comes to rules and mechanics knowledge) and the current State Rules Interpreter for the Maine Principals Association (the StateHSAA for the state of Maine). I know other past and present menbers of the NFHS Rules Committee and I can assure that that everyone will agree with me concerning your lack of understanding of the rules. If you find the concept that I am trying to teach you too difficult to grasp, then maybe you should find a different advocation, lest you become labled another Old School. Oh my gosh, I have said he who must not me named. LOL

The Rules Book, is not like the Bible. It is the law and there is only one interpretation per a specific rule, not a different interpretation by each official as he reads it. Get with the program.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. If you think JR is in attack mode you haven't seen me when I get my knickers in a bunch when a young official who thinks he knows everything there is to know won't listen to logic.