2007-08 NFHS Supplemental Rules Interpreations: SITUATION 10.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

a. A2 has OOB status. He is touching OOB with one foot that is all that is required. His status cannot be disputed and is not the issue here.

b. Once A2 catches the ball he must now follow the restrictions of the throw-in provisions. That includes 9-2-5: "... the thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." By holding the ball and touching inbounds he violated that provision and thus committed a throw-in violation. Case Book play 9.2.5 confirms that touching the court inbounds is a violation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

"... the thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court."

The above confusion backs up what I have always thought, which is that this rule, like others could be better worded. One foot in and one foot out equals out of bounds status for the player, which can result in confusion. Suggestion:
The thrower shall not touch the inbounds area with the ball or any part of his person.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The above confusion backs up what I have always thought, which is that this rule, like others could be better worded. One foot in and one foot out equals out of bounds status for the player, which can result in confusion. Suggestion:
The thrower shall not touch the inbounds area with the ball or any part of his person.

True, but isn't that what the Case Book does? It seems that the Case Book makes this point quite clearly.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True, but isn't that what the Case Book does? It seems that the Case Book makes this point quite clearly.

The Case Book does a lot, both to give practical examples of rules as written, and to expand the scope of rules to areas not mentioned at all in the rule book.
But this is an example, in my opinion, of language which does a poor job of delivering the intended message. When a thrower accidentally touches a toe inbounds, this would not for most people amount to "carrying the ball onto the court."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When a thrower accidentally touches a toe inbounds, this would not for most people amount to "carrying the ball onto the court."

Shall we have a poll?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Shall we have a poll?

I'll give you a pole.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'll give you a pole.

How about a famous Pole?



Frédéric Chopin

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JDW:

Go the the head of the class and collect a fine Cuban cigar.

MTD, Sr.

While I appreciate a good cigar, I also must add that I disagree with the interpretation.

Understanding the logic doesn't mean I agree with the logic.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is nonsense.

That is because it doesn't follow the actual text of the rule.

I find this statement odd based on your many previous comments. When I made the very same claim on a current POE, you said the rulebook includes the POE.

Why is this case any different? Please do not answer this, just a rhetorical inquiry.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
It is nonsense.

That is because it doesn't follow the actual text of the rule.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I find this statement odd based on your many previous comments. When I made the very same claim on a current POE, you said the rulebook includes the POE.

Why is this case any different? Please do not answer this, just a rhetorical inquiry.

Peace

Huh? I don't recall anything of the sort. Do you have me mixed up with JR?

Please provide a quote/link.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Both the FED and NCAA rulesmakers are telling us that particular call has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage, rough play or RBSQ. If we see 2 hands on a ballhandler, we are simply supposed to call a foul.

Originally Posted by You

I agree with the dinosaur. The NFHS is stating very clearly that two hands on = an advantage by definition, no judgment is necessary = a foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by truerookie
Yes, I read the comments. I was making a statement not directly at anyone. So, I just find it hard to believe incidental contact even came into this discussion.

Originally Posted by You

Considering who brought it up, I don't. If you look back through the thread, you will see that Rut was the first one to mention incidental contact. He did so even though the new and past POEs from the NFHS explicitly state that hand-checking is not incidental contact. We don't even have to consider it when making that call. If the criteria provided are met (such as two hands on the opposing ballhandler), then a hand-checking foul is necessary. That is what the national governing body wants. They have decided how they want the HS game to be contested. They have set the standard for what is acceptable and what is not. On the other hand there is Rut with his own personal opinion which he seems to think trumps the thoughts of those on the national committee. He obviously believes that his view is better for the game, and thus chooses to ignore the direct statements of the NFHS committee.

Now these are your comments unedited (except for the red, underlining and bold print of course).

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

a. A2 has OOB status. He is touching OOB with one foot that is all that is required. His status cannot be disputed and is not the issue here.

b. Once A2 catches the ball he must now follow the restrictions of the throw-in provisions. That includes 9-2-5: "... the thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." By holding the ball and touching inbounds he violated that provision and thus committed a throw-in violation. Case Book play 9.2.5 confirms that touching the court inbounds is a violation.

While I agree with your end result, I disagree with how you got there. A1 didn't "carry the ball unto the court" because they passed it. It could be argued A2 didn't "carry" the ball unto the court because they were standing in one spot (with OOB status) when they received the pass.

However, wouldn't 7-5-7(a) cover this?: "Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in, or he/she may pass the ball along the endline to a teammate outside the boundary.

Granted, a small, technical point. But who else would appreciate small, technical points the most?

[just another ref]

Actually this is not a throw-in violation at all but rather an out of bounds violation.

9-3-2: No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually this is not a throw-in violation at all but rather an out of bounds violation.

9-3-2: No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass.

It's an endline throw-in; could be either one.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's an endline throw-in; could be either one.

The throw-in ends when A2 touches the ball. 4-42-5