Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???

[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 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."

[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

If the ball is knocked OOB OUTof A1's hands by B1, it will be team A's ball. If it is knocked OOB OFF of A1's hands by B1, it will be team B's ball.

I think I agree with you. I definitely agree, 100%, with the part of your post that I quoted above. But the scary part is that I can't figure out how to reconcile your previous post, with this one, or with the original post. Maybe I'll just leave well enough alone. When you phrase it like your more recent post, you're right about this not being rocket science.

Nice job for someone with only seven posts. Your getting the hang of this Forum stuff.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm following this principle:

7.2.1 SITUATION:

A1 holds the ball near a sideline. B1 is inbounds and bats the ball from the hands of A1 causing it to go out of bounds. RULING: The ball is awarded to Team A as B1 caused it to go out of bounds.

Not enough information for me here. I would also like to know who touched the ball last in 7.2.1.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Being last to touch the ball is neither necessary nor sufficient for causing the ball to go OOB.

It isn't? 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.

[BillyMac]

Lah Me comes out of the phone booth to post yesterday at 12:34 p.m. and just disappears with no follow up posts? This reminds me of a few things:

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!"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Being last to touch the ball is neither necessary nor sufficient for causing the ball to go OOB.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It isn't? 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.

I'm curious also.

[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