Originally Posted by Nevadaref
(Post 578480)
Upon reconsideration, I think that you might have a good point.
Sorry that this is a bit long, but I found the logic and reasoning to be thought provoking.
The NFHS has not clearly defined most of these situations with case book plays since adding the word "legally" to the timing rules governing the first touching of a ball in situations in which the clock is stopped. They have only provided a couple of examples and we must make our decisions in all other cases based upon what we know from those.
There are two distinct situations that we need to consider. I grouped them as follows based upon the language used by the NFHS while commenting on the touching of AP throw-ins following the recent rule change.
1. Those in which the manner in which the ball is first touched is an illegal contact. (Kick or fist)
2. Those in which the touching itself is legal, but the player is infringing some other rule at the same time. (OOB or BI or jumpball provision)
At this point the above seemed to be a proper division of the possible actions for the timing restart rules. I reasoned that whether the clock starts or not, it should behave in the same manner for all cases which fall into each categories. Yet when I examined further it seems that I discover that there is something deeper at work here, and began to think that perhaps the above two categories are not the right ways to classify these plays.
In the first classification (illegal body contact with the ball--kick or fist), the NFHS has made it clear that the touching is illegal and thus the clock should NOT be started, per case book play 4.42.5. If the timer does start the clock, then a timing mistake has occurred and the referee should correct this error if he has definite knowledge of the amount of time involved.
In the second type of case (body contact legal, but some other rule infringed), the NFHS has clarified that it considers the touch to be legal in the AP throw-in ruling, per 2007-08 Interp Sit#3. The example given was a player being the first to touch a throw-in pass while standing on the OOB line. The violation is not for the manner in which the ball was contacted, but rather the position of the player. The NFHS has clarified that this is not a throw-in violation, but an OOB violation. Therefore, the clock should start on the touch and stop immediately upon the sounding of the whistle by an official. Some time can come off here if the official is slow on making the OOB call.
Now to your two most recent examples:
A. A kick on the first touch of a throw-in. The clock should NOT start. If the throw-in is an AP throw-in the arrow will be retained by the throwing team. (Look at the difference if the throw-in is contacted by an OOB player in a normal manner. The throw-in was legally completed and the arrow is lost. Therefore, the event gets timed.)
B. The FT restart when the first touch is by a rebounder who touches the ball normally, but also somehow violates (most likely by touching OOB). It seems that like the OOB violation, this must be a timed event, if the touching itself was legal. Of course, if a FT violation was committed, then the touching would be preceded by that and the clock doesn't start.
Now I returned to the tap of the jumpball. The rule states that the clock starts when the tossed ball is legally touched by one of the jumpers. (5-9-2) (Another recent wording change in a rule.) Yet there is also a rule that neither jumper shall touch the tossed ball before it reaches its highest point. (6-3-7a) At this point, I thought that like the OOB violation this should be a timed event, but had an unsatisfied feeling about my conclusion.
So, in order to decide if the clock should start, I really made a concerted effort to try to decide if manner in which the tap was touched was legal or not. I found myself tracking down a very fine line and making a delicate argument based upon the situations that the NFHS has so far provided.
I believe that a clear principle can be extracted if we ask the following question: Can a player legally touch the ball while it is in that location? The location of the ball, not the location of the player, seems to me to be what is paramount. I concluded that if the answer is yes, then the clock should start. If the answer is no, then the clock should not be started.
So, now applying this principle to these situations we get:
A. Throw-in while standing on an OOB line. Ball position is legal. A player jumping from inbounds could touch it there. Result: Clock starts and then stops. This is a timed event.
B. Missed FT and the rebounder commits BI while first touching the ball. There is a rule stating that the ball may NOT be touched while in this location. Result: Clock should not be started. This is an untimed event.
C. Jumpball toss tapped before reaching its highest point. There is a rule stating that the ball may NOT be touched while in this location. It must first go somewhere else and then return. Result: Clock should not be started. This is an untimed event.
Therefore, I rescind my earlier disagreement. ;)
PS It would really be nice if a priest would come visit and exercise the spirit of MTD Sr. from my body. :D
|
