out of bounds pass

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, it does. The point that I was trying to make is that the touching by the player whether he is inbounds or out of bounds is a legal touching. It is the location of that touching which is illegal and the cause of the violation. This is very different from the first contact being a kick or punch of the ball.

The reason that this concept is relevant to the clock/timing rules is that in 2007-08 the NFHS added the word "legally" to BOTH the rule on how a throw-in ends (4-42-5) AND the rule when the clock starts following a throw-in (5-9-4).

As we know this was done primarily because of the AP arrow. By adding the word "legally" to 4-42-5, the NFHS made it so that an illegal touch (kick, fist, etc.) did not cause the throw-in to end, and thus would not reverse the arrow. By adding the word "legally" the NFHS also made it so that the clock would not start in these situations. However, on a legal touching the throw-in ends, the arrow is reversed, and the clock would start as that is exactly what the wording of the rule says.

That same season the NFHS published a few play rulings to clarify what constituted legal touchings and what did not. It was made clear that a player standing OOB and touching the ball in an otherwise legal manner (not kicking it or striking it with a fist) had contacted the ball "legally" causing the throw-in to end and committed an OOB violation. This was the play ruling which I cited for the two of you. With it I was making the point to you that if one follows the logic behind the NFHS rulings, one will conclude that the clock does not start on illegal touchings, but does on legal touchings. Therefore, although play may be immediately whistled dead and the clock stopped, it still should be started on the touch.

In short, if you would reverse the arrow if the throw-in were an AP throw-in, then you should start the clock on the touching, but if the touching would prevent the AP arrow from being reversed, then the clock should not start on the play.

Simply put, you're wrong (half wrong anyway....you have the part about the illegal touch correct).

You're reading way to much into the rule. This rule is written assuming the remainder of the situation is not complicated by another infraction.

The rule says the clock starts when the ball is legally touched. Fine. But another rule says the clock should be stopped (or not started) because of the violation that happens EXACTLY at the same time. Therefore, it is valid for it to not start.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, it does. The point that I was trying to make is that the touching by the player whether he is inbounds or out of bounds is a legal touching. It is the location of that touching which is illegal and the cause of the violation. This is very different from the first contact being a kick or punch of the ball.

The reason that this concept is relevant to the clock/timing rules is that in 2007-08 the NFHS added the word "legally" to BOTH the rule on how a throw-in ends (4-42-5) AND the rule when the clock starts following a throw-in (5-9-4).

As we know this was done primarily because of the AP arrow. By adding the word "legally" to 4-42-5, the NFHS made it so that an illegal touch (kick, fist, etc.) did not cause the throw-in to end, and thus would not reverse the arrow. By adding the word "legally" the NFHS also made it so that the clock would not start in these situations. However, on a legal touching the throw-in ends, the arrow is reversed, and the clock would start as that is exactly what the wording of the rule says.

That same season the NFHS published a few play rulings to clarify what constituted legal touchings and what did not. It was made clear that a player standing OOB and touching the ball in an otherwise legal manner (not kicking it or striking it with a fist) had contacted the ball "legally" causing the throw-in to end and committed an OOB violation. This was the play ruling which I cited for the two of you. With it I was making the point to you that if one follows the logic behind the NFHS rulings, one will conclude that the clock does not start on illegal touchings, but does on legal touchings. Therefore, although play may be immediately whistled dead and the clock stopped, it still should be started on the touch.

In short, if you would reverse the arrow if the throw-in were an AP throw-in, then you should start the clock on the touching, but if the touching would prevent the AP arrow from being reversed, then the clock should not start on the play.

All this makes perfect sense............except the part where you think the clock should start on a violation which makes the ball dead. Why can you not just believe that the changes were made to clarify when a throw-in has ended, with the change of the AP being the primary concern.

There are some assumptions made in the books which are problematic, some of which are later clarified. I think the assumption that most would know that the clock does not start on a violation which causes the ball to be immediately dead is not unreasonable.

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by tjchamp

I do not believethat to be the correct reference to use. 9.2.2 would indicate that is a legal throw in, but the violation occurs because the player is now out of bounds.

I believe the correct rule to look at would be 9-2-3, which indicates the thrown ball shall not be touched by a teammate of the thrower while the ball is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane (i.e. an illegal touch).

now we're back to where i came in, before it got way past me. As I try to get up to speed on timers/clocks; can endline priveleges still be retained when talking about AP situations ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

now we're back to where i came in, before it got way past me. As I try to get up tp speed on timers/clocks; can endline priveleges still be retained when talking about AP situations ?

I'm not aware of any situation involving an AP throw-in that would include an end-line throw-in.

[Back In The Saddle]

I think I understand your question, but I'm sure somebody will set me straight if I don't. I cannot think of any situation where an AP throw-in is not a designated spot throw-in. And I cannot think of any situation where a team is allow to run the baseline, something happens that results in an AP throw-in, and the team that gets the throw-in (which would have to be the original throwing team) is allowed to retain the privilege of running the end line.

So I'd have to say, no.

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I think I understand your question, but I'm sure somebody will set me straight if I don't. I cannot think of any situation where an AP throw-in is not a designated spot throw-in. And I cannot think of any situation where a team is allow to run the baseline, something happens that results in an AP throw-in, and the team that gets the throw-in (which would have to be the original throwing team) is allowed to retain the privilege of running the end line.

So I'd have to say, no.

thanks, I just swerved a little when the AP arrow part came in to the thread.