2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It is a pretty simple concept.

It is a simple concept. Unfortunately, it's deja vu all over again when it comes to you failing to understand simple concepts.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

A2's touching causes two things to happen simulanteously: 1) Causing the ball to return to the backcourt, and 2) being the first player to touch it after the ball returned to the backcourt. It is a pretty simple concept.

MTD, Sr.

Yep, seems pretty simple to me too.

Simultaneously is not the same as BEFORE.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Just wished to make sure that no one attributed words to me that weren't mine simply because FrankHtown messed up the quote feature.

[Raymond]

So A1 is in the front court, throws a pass, it's tipped by B1, and A2 catches the pass in the air while standing in the back court. This is now a backcourt violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So A1 is in the front court, throws a pass, it's tipped by B1, and A2 catches the pass in the air whiling standing in the back court. This is now a backcourt violation?

While it doesn't meet the requirements of either 9-9-1 or 9-9-2, it is a violation according the logic set forth in last year's interp (sit 10).

Rather absurd, huh?

Where have you been for a whole year?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

While it doesn't meet the requirements of either 9-9-1 or 9-9-2, it is a violation according the logic set forth in last year's interp (sit 10).

Rather absurd, huh?

Where have you been for a whole year?

Good thing. I would have had a heck of a time explaining that ruling to a coach.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Good thing. I would have had a heck of a time explaining that ruling to a coach.

Might I suggest that you let MTD explain it to the coach for you?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Might I suggest that you let MTD explain it to the coach for you?

Talk about prolonging a game....

[Raymond]

Well, here's unrelated play but it caused a lot of debate in camp among the observers, including the conference supervisor:

Made basket, A1 retrieves ball OOB and throws the ball OOB along the end line to A2. But...A2 is standing with one foot inbound and one foot OOB. What is A2's status?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What is A2's status?

He's now playing defense as B is throwing the ball in.

Once A1 stepped out of bounds, he has to either throw it in or throw it to a teammate out of bounds. A2 is neither in bounds nor out of bounds, so it's a violation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, here's unrelated play but it caused a lot of debate in camp among the observers, including the conference supervisor:

Made basket, A1 retrieves ball OOB and throws the ball OOB along the end line to A2. But...A2 is standing with one foot inbound and one foot OOB. What is A2's status?

His status is he has committed a violation.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, here's unrelated play but it caused a lot of debate in camp among the observers, including the conference supervisor:

Made basket, A1 retrieves ball OOB and throws the ball OOB along the end line to A2. But...A2 is standing with one foot inbound and one foot OOB. What is A2's status?

I'd like to believe the player is OOB but a violation must be called as he is simultaneously standing IB before passing the ball directly onto the court.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The posters that have trouble with this ruling are missing the point that I thought was so obvious that it is not a violation for a player from Team A, which has control of the ball in its frontcourt, to cause the ball to go from Team A's frontcourt to a Team A's backcourt. The violation is being the first player to touch or be touched by the ball after the ball has regained backcourt status. A2's touching causes two things to happen simulanteously: 1) Causing the ball to return to the backcourt, and 2) being the first player to touch it after the ball returned to the backcourt. It is a pretty simple concept.

MTD, Sr.

Correct you are on this statement. However (in the Sit 10 from the NFHS), who was the last to touch the ball before the ball returned to the backcourt? B. There fore, there is no violation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I'd like to believe the player is OOB but a violation must be called as he is simultaneously standing IB before passing the ball directly onto the court.

The official on the court did not call a violation. He explanation was as follows:

• A2 status was OOB. A2 then lifted his inbound foot and stepped completely OOB therefore maintaining his OOB status before passing the ball directly on to the court.

Most of us agreed that it was a violation but we were having a hard time articulating why to the calling official vis-a-vis a rule's citation.

[Adam]

Maybe I can piece it together at home with the rules cites, but here's my logic:

1. There are specific things A1 is allowed to do without violation. Once he releases the ball, it must do one of two things: go directly onto the court or go to a teammate standing out of bounds along the same endline.

2. The teammate was not standing completely out of bounds when he caught the ball, therefore it's a throwin violation.