Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???

[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.

[Raymond]

In pick up ball Team B gets the ball.

In any game I'm officiating Team A gets the ball.

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In pick up ball Team B gets the ball.

In any game I'm officiating Team A gets the ball.

IMHO, Absolutely right!!! If B1 slaps the ball with great force, obvious to everyone that his impetus forced the ball out of bounds, even though A1's hand is the last to touch the ball (being that it's on it), I am giving it to A for the throwin....It is like someone wearing a glove, and striking the ball with the glove....the glove actually touching the ball didn't cause it to go OOBs, but the swinging-driving hand did..A Ball for throwin...IMHO

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

IMHO, Absolutely right!!! If B1 slaps the ball with great force, obvious to everyone that his impetus forced the ball out of bounds, even though A1's hand is the last to touch the ball (being that it's on it), I am giving it to A for the throwin....It is like someone wearing a glove, and striking the ball with the glove....the glove actually touching the ball didn't cause it to go OOBs, but the swinging-driving hand did..A Ball for throwin...IMHO

And that is where the wiggle room exists. Is A1's hand really the last one to touch it? Can you see it so well that you can definitively state that B1's hand was not touching it at the same time? In my game, B1 will be the last one to have touched the ball unless I can clearly see A1's hand on the ball after B1's hand has seperated from the ball.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

IMHO, Absolutely right!!! If B1 slaps the ball with great force, obvious to everyone that his impetus forced the ball out of bounds, ...........

Isn't this teetering less now an "incidental contact to the hand" and leaning more towards a foul?

[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!"