Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???
 

The hand is considered part of the ball when the hand 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 problem. Now, get ready for this. Here it comes. 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.

Easy part. No foul on B1. It's incidental contact, as defined above.

Hard part. Who caused the ball to go out of bounds, thus awarding the other team a throwin?

Since the hand is considered part of the ball when the hand is in contact with the ball, didn't B1 actually slap the ball, thus causing the ball, as part of the hand, to go out of bounds, thus awarding the throwin to Team A?

Or, did A1, being the last to actually touch the ball, cause it to go out of bounds, thus awarding the throw to Team B?

I've given you "a topic. Talk amongst yourselves."

This is my vote.

Wow. How did you come up with this one? Kinda makes my head hurt, but I also vote OB caused by A1. Throw in by B. All the while, Coach A is screaming "Over the back!!!".

Where Are Jurassic Referee, and ChuckElias, When You Really Need Them ...
 

I overheard some fellow officials discussing it at a Refresher Exam study session a few nights ago. I made my head hurt too, so I chose not to get involved with their discussion at that time, but this interesting situation has been on my mind all week long, so I decided to stir things up on the weekend version of the Forum. I'm a bad boy.

If the hand is part of the ball, B1 struck the hand, thus striking the ball, and he knocked the ball out of bounds...Inbound for Team A. Picture him coming up fast from behind, and striking the "ball" with some force and it goes out of bounds.....Not a hard call there...and the hand is part of the ball....

Skarecrow

B's ball for the throw-in

-Josh

The hand is only "part of the ball" for the purposes of determining a foul....and is only such when the contact with the hand is incidental to a play on the ball (a defender can't just whack someone's hand just becasue it is on the ball). It has no bearing on who touched the ball.

That said, I'm calling the OOB on B because I'm going to see his pinky finger making a slight brush on the ball as it is being batted away.

I'm following this principle:

7.2.1 SITUATION:

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.

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

I like this, because it now creates an additional question (the law of unintended consequences):

What if A1 looses the ball and its going OOB. As the loose ball flies past B1, he instinctively sticks his hand out for the ball and it grazes off his fingertips and OOB. Did B1 cause the ball to go OOB or did A1?


And for what its worth, I hate the "hand is part of the ball" rule- To me, there is something inherently wrong about the rule allowing a player to smack another players hand on a shot or pass and having no call... I know,it's a rule, but it doesn't mean I have to like it....

Z

What he said.

"I don't think so. Homey don't play that!".
 

Nice try, but I'm not letting you get away with that. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.00.

I'm Falling On My Sword ...
 

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?

I think that would help my headache.:p

Who You Gonna Call? Mythbusters? Don't Know. Are They Reliable ?
 

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?

JR? Is that you?

From Out Of A Nearby Phone Booth ...
 

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."

And Jurassic Referee Was From Hell, This Newbie's From Nowhere ...
 

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.

Brain Surgery ???
 

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.

Good Citation, But I'm Greedy ...
 

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

There's Also 7-2-2 ???
 

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.

Eerie, Mysterious, Strange, Weird ???
 

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!"

I'm curious also.

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?

:confused:

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.

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

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?

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.

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

By Rule For A Test, Or By Spirit Of Rule For Game ...
 

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.?

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.

I'm Not A Philosopher, Writer, Or English Teacher ...
 

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.

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

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.

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

Defender probably got too much wrist. :cool:

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

YU.P.
Intent.
Mine.
:)

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?

Escape Clause ...
 

Too easy. That's cheating.

If There's A Phone Booth Around, He'll Be Back ...
 

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!"