Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???

[mbyron]

Not necessary: A1 rebounds the ball after a try. As he comes down with it, B1 hits his hand (not the ball), causing the ball to go OOB. Given that this is not a foul, it will be A's ball for a throwin.

A1 last touched the ball but did not cause it to go OOB.

Not sufficient: see the "unless" clause of 7-2-1. A1 throws the ball in, and B1 deflects it back into A1's body before A1 returns inbounds. It will be B's ball for a throwin.

A1 caused the ball to be OOB but was not the last (inbounds) player to touch it.

"Last to touch inbounds" is not the criterion of "caused to go out of bounds." Q.E.D.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not necessary: A1 rebounds the ball after a try. As he comes down with it, B1 hits his hand (not the ball), causing the ball to go OOB. Given that this is not a foul, it will be A's ball for a throwin.

A1 last touched the ball but did not cause it to go OOB.

Not sufficient: see the "unless" clause of 7-2-1. A1 throws the ball in, and B1 deflects it back into A1's body before A1 returns inbounds. It will be B's ball for a throwin.

A1 caused the ball to be OOB but was not the last (inbounds) player to touch it.

"Last to touch inbounds" is not the criterion of "caused to go out of bounds." Q.E.D.

Hmmmm.....maybe that's the same NFHS thinking that got us situation 10 regading the BC violation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not necessary: A1 rebounds the ball after a try. As he comes down with it, B1 hits his hand (not the ball), causing the ball to go OOB. Given that this is not a foul, it will be A's ball for a throwin.

A1 last touched the ball but did not cause it to go OOB.

By rule, this one is wrong. This should be B's ball for a throwin. A was the last to touch the ball, B did not cause the ball to go OOB based on the rules.
The hand is not part of the ball, this is simply incidental contact.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Not sufficient: see the "unless" clause of 7-2-1. A1 throws the ball in, and B1 deflects it back into A1's body before A1 returns inbounds. It will be B's ball for a throwin.

A1 caused the ball to be OOB but was not the last (inbounds) player to touch it.

"Last to touch inbounds" is not the criterion of "caused to go out of bounds." Q.E.D.

I was thinking of this part, and it makes sense.

[Adam]

Didn't say I'd give the ball to team B. There's no way my eyes are good enough to see that B1 didn't touch the ball and only touched A1's hand. I'm going with accepted practice on this.

BTW, "Bull Pucky?" Have we met?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

Again, I call bull pucky.

By rule, you're wrong. It's only incidental contact if that contact does not give a player an advantage not meant by rule. The contact always has to be incidental to the defender attempting to play the ball. Says so right in NFHS rule 10-6-2.

There's no rule in existence that I know of that states an official can ignore contact that gives their opponents a decided advantage. That's regarded as illegal contact....and that's exactly what you're promoting.

The definition of "Incidental Contact" in rule 4-27-3 says that the contact can't hinder an opponent from participating in normal offensive movements. Soooooo....'splain to me how hitting a player's hand and knocking the ball away ISN'T hindering that player from performing his normal offensive duties?

...

By letter of the relevant rules, it should be a foul. By accepted practice, you give team A the ball for a throw-in instead. If you're "that official" however, you will give team B the throw-in.

Lah me....massive over-thinking of a common call runs rampant again.

JMCFO.

PS...I also disagree with you that B1 didn't knock the ball OOB also.

Couldn't be more wrong.

Hitting the hand in an attempt to hit the ball is NOT a foul....advantage or not...ever. By rule, it is explictly excuded from being a foul in two places.

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.

There you have it. It is legal. Period.

10-6-1...He or she shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

This is not talking about incidental contact...it is talking about the action being part of playing the ball as opposed to act solely intended to hit the hand.

Incidental contact only allows an official to ignore contact that would otherwise be a foul when there is no advantage gained. It does NOT, never has, and never will, turn contact that is explictly defined as legal into a foul if it leads to an advantage.


There would be no point to either of these rules quotes if a foul were desired in the presense of an advantage. The other rules would already cover that just fine. These only exist to allow such contact as legal when, without them, it would be illegal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

Complete, utter and unmitigated bull pucky.

Methinks you need to find someone somewhere to explain to you what the words "accidentally" and "incidental" mean.

"Accidentally" doesn't mean that ALL contact is "accidental". If that was true, you would NEVER have a foul.

And not ALL contact is incidental either.

Didn't bother to read rules 4-27-3& 5, did you?

There is nowayinhell you can calll any contact "accidental" or "incidental" when an opponent gains an unfair advantage through that contact. And knocking a ball OOB by hitting your opponent's hand is sureashell gaining an unfair advantage if some goober gives you a throw-in for doing so.

However, I sureashell aren't gonna change your mind....and I sureashell ain't gonna try to either. Call what you want to call. Hopefully everybody else will call it the way it's been called for the last 50 years.

You remind of someone else who use to hang around here who was usually pretty darn smart but sometimes was just as incapable of understanding the basic English in the rulebook.

It flat out says it is not a foul if you attempt to hit the ball and, in the process of trying to hit the ball, accidentally hit the other player's hand. It makes absolutely no qualification based on advantage/disadvantage...none. It simply says it is not a foul.

And yes, I read 4-27...all of it. And not one word of it is the least bit relevant. It is defining to be NOT a foul, through the absence of an advantage, forms of contact that, had their been an advantage, would be a foul. It is NOT defining fouls. It only turns fouls into non-fouls....not the other way around.

The point of "accidentally" is to establish that the defender can't just stand there and repeatedly and deliberately pound on their opponent's hand just because it is in contact with the ball.

There is NO unfair advantage gained that was not intended by the rules. Why not? Because the rules explicitly and plainly (although some appear to not be able to grasp it) grant that specific advantage...which makes it fair.

EDIT: And if such a ball happens to go OOB, then that is a separate and independent call...who caused it to go OOB....who was the player to last touch the ball. That player is probably going to be the defender almost all of the time.

EDIT2: spelling corrected

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And if such a ball happens to go OOB, then that is a separate and independent call...who caused it to go OOB....who was the player to last touch the ball. That player is probably going to be the defender almost all of the time.

That's the part that I would like to get an answer to, by rule.

Do we somehow make an exception for NFHS 7-2-1 (The ball is caused to go out of bounds by the last player in bounds to touch it or be touched by it, unless the ball touches a player who is out of bounds prior to touching something out of bounds other than a player.) for this particular play, and if so, are we allowed by rule to do so, or is this more of a "tradition" that we backup with advantage/disadvantage, spirit/purpose, etc.?

[mbyron]

As a metaphysical point, 7-2-1 is just wrong, in general, about causation. I do not have to touch a thing to cause it to move, which is lucky when you think about hammers and nails or any other tool or instrument.

The rule is there to make OOB an easy call: last to touch caused it to be OOB. We don't see causation directly, but we do see (or can see) touching.

The infrequent problem cases arise when the two criteria -- touching and causing -- come apart, and the last to touch did NOT cause the ball to go out of bounds.

At that point, it makes sense (to me at least) to go with the spirit of the rule: whoever actually caused the ball to be OOB violated. My view is that the rule pertains mainly to causation, and uses touching as a guideline to determining causation. If the guideline fails in a particular case, don't use it then.

I think that it's also worth mentioning that, though infrequent, this kind of thing does happen, maybe once per game or every other game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The rule is there to make OOB an easy call: last to touch caused it to be OOB. We don't see causation directly, but we do see (or can see) touching. The infrequent problem cases arise when the two criteria -- touching and causing -- come apart, and the last to touch did NOT cause the ball to go out of bounds. At that point, it makes sense (to me at least) to go with the spirit of the rule: whoever actually caused the ball to be OOB violated. My view is that the rule pertains mainly to causation, and uses touching as a guideline to determining causation. If the guideline fails in a particular case, don't use it then. I think that it's also worth mentioning that, though infrequent, this kind of thing does happen, maybe once per game or every other game.

mbyron: Good post, and I finally understand your point from your post from a few days ago.

That's the heart of my question. I will say that, in my opinion, by rule, I believe that 7-2-1 defines who caused the ball to go out of bounds, the last player to touch it.

[Camron Rust]

Any one find it peculiar that "Lah Me" came in and made two very strongly worded, even arrogant and condescending, but incorrect posts (much in the style of an not-recently-seen poster) and then deletes them when the rulings so strongly claimed are shown to be bogus?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Any one find it peculiar that "Lah Me" came in and made two very strongly worded, even arrogant and condescending, but incorrect posts (much in the style of an not-recently-seen poster) and then deletes them when the rulings so strongly claimed are shown to be bogus?

Didn't you read my earlier post?

Lois Lane: "Clark. What happened to Superman?"

Local Town-person: "Who was that masked man?"
Another Local Towns-person: "Why, he's the Lone Ranger!"
Lone Ranger: "Hi-yo, Silver, away!"

On Wednesday night: "Tune in tomorrow, same bat-time, same bat-channel."
On Thursday night: "Watch the next episode!"