Not sure if any one remembers but we had a huge(very long) discussion on the belwo play:

B1 scores a basket and A1 grabs the ball from teh net and immediately throws it to a breaking away A2 running down the court. The problem is A1 never stepped out of bounds for the throw in.

The answers we discussed were the below 3, no consencous on the board and actually no consencous between IAABBO and NFHS and state HS.

The 3 answers:
1.) This is a violation
2.) This is a delay of game warning.
3.) It is a do over, blow your whistle and reset the thrown in.

These were the 3 answers that we all battled with. No need to battle any more.. NFHS has clarified the rule and also put in case study examples.

RULE 9-2-2, Added language that clarifies a throw-in must be made from out of bounds. While a seemingly obvious editorial revision, that clarification reveals intent of the NFHS committee: A throw in by a player is is not out of bounds at teh time results in a VIOLATION... Congrats to all who chose violation back then.

In the case book it goes on and gives the exact above play to further clarify it is a violation. Now there is no confusion......

Self, you had me scared for a moment - I thought you were going to re-open this industrial-sized can of worms.

I think I can safely say that people from all 3 camps are just happy to see that there is an official interpretation, whether we agreed with it in the past or not.

True. There was no right or wrong way to handle it before. You just had to do what you thought was correct or what you were told.

Just a very minor, nit-picking correction here, since the entire basketball world (except those pesky professional women) is taking an afternoon nap this month...

The correct spelling of "consencous" is actually c-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s, although c-o-n-c-e-n-s-u-s is also accepted by many non-Quakers. It is based on the root consent, not census.

Parenthetically, I would just like to hop up on the soap box here for a moment, and point out that the origin of the concept of consensus is in Quaker polity where the goal is to agree about what is the will of God. It was never intended to mean "unanimity" which is how it is usually used today, even among many Quakers. I have seen it attempted both ways, and I feel safe in asserting that the "unanimity" thing is virtually impossible in any group larger than about three people. But agreeing ahead of time to discern and submit to the will of God is an incredible experience when it happens. This is not a sermon or a prescription, just a description of some Quaker history.

Thank You for the correction, by the way......
 

I never said I was a spelling wiz... Just a humble rules expert....haha....

Interesting, but I never saw concensus used to mean unanimous....maybe we need an official ruling or case book play for this! :D

Read again....
 

No one said unanimous. Maybe you could use Webster and see that consensus means an opinion held by ALL or MOST. A general agreement.

So since everyone was saying one of these three. It would be correct to say. "There was no consensus among the group".

Thanks.....

Re: Read again....
 

Self, didn't you see the :D at the end of Dan's post? He's joking about it.

Now, go take your Prozac. :)

Re: Read again....
 

I'll be happy to use Webster if you also promise to reread the thread, in particular pay close attention to Juulie's soapbox "rant" where she claims concensus appears to be used today to strongly imply "unanimity".

And since I'm typing, I'll add that I agree with Tony that practically anything you did on this play was acceptable. Well, anything short of declaring a forfeit or blowing the play dead due to a throw-in violation (in other words I disagree with the NF ruling as you presented it). When, exactly, are we to decide that passing/handing the ball to a team mate who is also inbounds constitues a throw-in? IMO this is exactly the wrong way to handle the play, it should be a delay warning or blown dead & done again properly without comment, depending on the situation.

Re: Re: Read again....
 

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref ....I disagree with the NF ruling as you presented it). When, exactly, are we to decide that passing/handing the ball to a team mate who is also inbounds constitues a throw-in? IMO this is exactly the wrong way to handle the play, it should be a delay warning or blown dead & done again properly without comment, depending on the situation.

Any other rules you want to change in order to make the game correct in your own eyes? :D

Juulie - what's a "polity"?

Re: Re: Read again....
 

In the case book they list about three example of when to blow it a violation and when not to.Your example of tossing to a teammate for a throw in is given. The ruling is to wait and see the result of the throw in and use your judgement if attempt to ignore the rule or to toss to a teammate for a throw-in. I think that this is the correct way to call this personally. If a player is obviously trying to ignore stepping out of bounds to make a legal throw in to gain an advantage, I feel this warrants a violatin and not a warning. Not one of the official warnings listed anyway...

Re: Re: Re: Read again....
 

Nah, the game is mostly fine although I would love to see a rule that prevents coaches from being in the gym when the refs are! :eek:

Seriously, I think when it's crunch time (like A1 makes a full court pass to A2 before going OOB for the throw-in with 3 seconds left in the game) there will be lots of confusion when the violation is called, which is fine, but the real problem is when A1 decides he wants A2 to take the ball out, tosses it to him and there's a whistle for a violation.

It shouldn't happen....
 

Tell your partner to learn the rules......

Re: Re: Read again....
 

First its Paxil, the consensus is it has a more uniform delivery. haha

Secondly, how do you put the message icon in the body of the reply and not in the subject... Thanks in advance BktballRef........