Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Reference, please. And, I know it's legal to make contact with the hand while the hand is in contact with the ball. And, "the hand is part of the ball" is an easy way to remember that. IT doesn't necessarily follow, though, that the saying applies in all situations.

You're right. Sorry. I was being lazy, and took the statement from the Misunderstood Rules list, which, by intention, doesn't always use rulebook language.

NFHS 4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

This makes my original post question null and void. The hand is not considered part of the ball. This now becomes easy. Any third grader knows the answer. A1 was the last to touch the ball, causing it to go out of bounds, thus awarding the throwin to Team B.

Thanks bob jenkins. Great catch. Forum members, I'm sorry that I wasted your time. I knew there was a reason why I should not have gotten involved with this to begin with. I should have stuck with my gut instinct. I won't delete this post. I'll leave it as a testimonial for those who forget that the NFHS Rulebook is our Bible, our Śruti, our Qur’an, our Tanakh, our Pāli Canon, etc. There are no shortcuts in rules interpretation.

As the keeper of the Misunderstood Rules list, I will consider making a change to this misunderstood rule. Isn't it ironic. The keeper of the Misunderstood Rules list, misunderstood a rule, that was on the list. Color me Idiot. Boy, do I feel foolish? Maybe I'll post an image, or two, to cheer myself up?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe I'll post an image, or two, to cheer myself up?

I think that would help my headache.

[BillyMac]

THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD BASKETBALL RULES (Correction In Red)

It is legal use of hands to accidentally hit the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler or a shooter on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul, no matter how loud it sounds or how much it hurts.

I've been "keeping" this list since March, 2005, and have, at least once, or twice a year, asked for comments, suggestions, corrections, deletions, additions, etc., from Forum members. I'm surprised that it took more than three and an half years to find this error on the list.

Thanks to the following Official Forum Basketball web site members for their contributions in developing this list: bossref, Hartsy, Jurassic Referee, Camron Rust, Mark Padgett, Nevadaref, Mark Dexter, Dan ref, mdray, Jimgolf, elecref, Assignmentmaker, IREFU2, David M, JeffW, Back In The Saddle, rainmaker, texaspaul, BktBallRef, and bob jenkins.

Wow, I haven't really looked at this contributer list in a long time. What's happened to some of our esteemed members? Remember, in elementary school, when we were asked to look at a picture, and decide what didn't belong there? Why is Mark Padgett on this list?

[Bad Zebra]

JR? Is that you?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

JR? Is that you?

Can't you read. It's Lah Me. He's a newbie. Showed up about two weeks ago, and then went on a vacation for a couple of weeks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

Some calls are historically expected and accepted. This is one of those type of calls. The intent and purpose of the rule is to penalize the player that caused the violation. And B1 caused the violation by contacting A1's hand while it was on the ball. Without that contact, the ball does NOT go OOB. If you give team B the ball for a throw-in, you're giving team B an advantage that was not intended by rule. You cannot say that any contact is "incidental" if one team gains a decided advantage through that contact.

Let me see if I understand you. A1 is trying to control a rebound and has the ball cupped in one hand. From behind, B1 slaps the back of A1's hand that is in contact with the ball, causing A1's hand to push the ball in such a way that the ball goes out of bounds. Your probably not going to call a foul because you deem it to be incidental contact. Your also claiming that by advantage/disadvantage B1 caused the ball to go out of bounds, by contacting A1's hand, and you will award the ball to Team A for a throwin.

Interesting interpretation, which is probably why my two colleagues were discussing it. Two points to ponder. First, you're claiming that the contact put the A1 at a disadvantage not allowed by the rules. Isn't this the definition of a foul. Secondly, in twenty-seven years, I've never heard of this historical, and expected, interpretation, which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. I've heard something similar. Two players are going for a rebound, the player in the back brushes the player in the front a little, not enough to call a foul, but, on the other hand, a little more than incidental contact. With a lot of hands, and fingers, near the ball, it goes out of bounds. Even though the last finger to touch it was the player in front, I've seen veteran officials award the ball to player in front's team. When asked about it, in some cases by a coach, the official stated that it was "better" than calling a foul on the behind player.

OK. I guess that my original question really had some value, so I guess, and hope, that this discussion will continue. "Talk amongst yourselves."