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

[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

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Remember this is on a made basket.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
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?

[BktBallRef]

Sometimes the discussions on here amaze me.

In order for A1 to pass the ball to A2 in this situation, it is not enough for him to be OOB. "Any player of the team may make a direct throw-in or he/she may pass the ball along the end line to a teammate(s) outside the boundaryline." (7-5-7) If he's standing with one foot touching inbounds, he's not outside the boundary line.

If he isn't, then the pass is a throw-in.

A2 commits an OOB violation because he is OOB with the ball when the throw-in ends.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sometimes the discussions on here amaze me.

In order for A1 to pass the ball to A2 in this situation, he must be completely OOB (not touching inbounds).

If he isn't, then the pass is a throw-in.

A2 commits an OOB violation because he is OOB with the ball when the throw-in ends.

What he said.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sometimes the discussions on here amaze me.

In order for A1 to pass the ball to A2 in this situation, he must be completely OOB (not touching inbounds).

If he isn't, then the pass is a throw-in.

A2 commits an OOB violation because he is OOB with the ball when the throw-in ends.

My purpose for posting the scenario is not whether or not it is a violation, but WHY it is a violation per a rules citation. At the time no one had a rule book handy and we (those who thought it was a violation) were having trouble articulating why it was a violation to the official in question.