Did I mess this one up?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

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, .


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.