Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???

[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?

[mick]

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

Originally Posted by CoachP

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

Defender probably got too much wrist.

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by mick

Defender probably got too much wrist.

LOL....had to be too much wrist, or OOBs for A....all judgement call....isn't it?

[mick]

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

LOL....had to be too much wrist, or OOBs for A....all judgement call....isn't it?

YU.P.
Intent.
Mine.

[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 mick

Defender probably got too much wrist.

Too easy. That's cheating.

[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!"

[mick]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Too easy. That's cheating.

"Whack !"