out of bounds pass

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not sure I'm following you here.
Let's go back to the original play:
Endline throwin, A1 has the ball. He throws towards A2 who is trying to get OOB but doesn't make it down in time. The ball stays on the OOB side of the plane the entire time, and A2 jumps from in bounds and catches the ball just before landing OOB.

What is the violation, and why does it matter?

Athough it's an endline throw in , the conditions haven't been met by teammates being outside the boundary,therefore ( IMO of course) it's an "ordinary" throw in . the violation would be for touching/grabbing the ball while it was out of bounds; 7-6-2 ... shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out of bounds side of the throw in boundary plane . If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball . aren't you 'sposed to give the rookies answers, or questions ?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball .

The difference also matters because it is a throw-in violation. The clock will never start and the spot of the violation is the original throw-in spot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

Athough it's an endline throw in , the conditions haven't been met by teammates being outside the boundary,therefore ( IMO of course) it's an "ordinary" throw in . the violation would be for touching/grabbing the ball while it was out of bounds; 7-6-2 ... shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out of bounds side of the throw in boundary plane . If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball . aren't you 'sposed to give the rookies answers, or questions ?

Whether it's an end line throw-in or a spot throw-in is determined by what the players are allowed to do rather than what they actually do. If A1 grabs the ball, steps out and throws it in immediately, it was still an end line throw-in.

Back to the point, though. Let me ask the question this way:
Is it a throw-in violation, or an OOB violation? Why does it matter?

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Whether it's an end line throw-in or a spot throw-in is determined by what the players are allowed to do rather than what they actually do. If A1 grabs the ball, steps out and throws it in immediately, it was still an end line throw-in.

Back to the point, though. Let me ask the question this way:
Is it a throw-in violation, or an OOB violation? Why does it matter?

I knew that was going to be the question, Nevada gave me a hint earlier in this thread that that might be the focus. I'll study it at work later ( don't cross any railroad tracks today without looking twice today !) My initial reaction , i'm sticking with throw-in violation where A2 jumped out /reached through , ball to B1 for a throw in at that spot, maybe ! .

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

Athough it's an endline throw in , the conditions haven't been met by teammates being outside the boundary,therefore ( IMO of course) it's an "ordinary" throw in . the violation would be for touching/grabbing the ball while it was out of bounds; 7-6-2 ... shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out of bounds side of the throw in boundary plane . If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball . aren't you 'sposed to give the rookies answers, or questions ?

Correct, except for your spelling of "losing."

Originally Posted by Upward ref

I knew that was going to be the question, Nevada gave me a hint earlier in this thread that that might be the focus. I'll study it at work later ( don't cross any railroad tracks today without looking twice today !) My initial reaction , i'm sticking with throw-in violation where A2 jumped out /reached through , ball to B1 for a throw in at that spot, maybe ! .

Good, the point is that it is a throw-in violation, not a legal throw-in, and the ensuing throw-in will come from the original throw-in spot, in this case from where the ball was thrown.

Originally Posted by Welpe

The difference also matters because it is a throw-in violation. The clock will never start and the spot of the violation is the original throw-in spot.

Actually, the clock should start and then quickly stop on the whistle as the touching itself is legal, meaning the contact was not made with the leg or a fist. It is just the location of that touching which is illegal. This is a subtle point and was clarified a couple of years ago when the NFHS committee added the word "legally" to the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Correct, except for your spelling of "losing."


Good, the point is that it is a throw-in violation, not a legal throw-in, and the ensuing throw-in will come from the original throw-in spot, in this case from where the ball was thrown.


Actually, the clock should start and then quickly stop on the whistle as the touching itself is legal, meaning the contact was not made with the leg or a fist. It is just the location of that touching which is illegal. This is a subtle point and was clarified a couple of years ago when the NFHS committee added the word "legally" to the rule.

I don't think that was the actual conclusion. I believe it was that when the touch is illegal the clock should not start and, if it does, should be restored to the original time. The converse it not automatically true. I really don't think it said the clock should start if the touching were legal but in an illegal location. It just said that it was not a timing error if it does start in those cases.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think that was the actual conclusion. I believe it was that when the touch is illegal the clock should not start and, if it does, should be restored to the original time. The converse it not automatically true. I really don't think it said the clock should start if the touching were legal but in an illegal location. It just said that it was not a timing error if it does start in those cases.

Either it is proper for the clock to start in a situation or it isn't. There is no middle ground. If it wouldn't be a timing error if the clock does start and the officials would not reset the clock, then that is because it was proper for it to start according to the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Either it is proper for the clock to start in a situation or it isn't. There is no middle ground. If it wouldn't be a timing error if the clock does start and the officials would not reset the clock, then that is because it was proper for it to start according to the rule.

No, it is "acceptable" for the clock to start but it is not required. Therefore, "should" is not the correct word. May start and shall start are two different things.

In the case where the initial touch being illegal (kick), the clock shall NOT start. But in other cases, it MAY start but it is possible that the play is blown dead before it starts.

If the official blows the whistle either before indicating time should start or in absense of indicating time shoud start (seeing that the initial touch is also a violation), then the clock will not start...and that is entirely proper. It is not an error. If an official starts the clock and another blows it dead for anything other than a throwin violation/illegal touch the clock MAY legally run for a short period of time...but it not a timing error if it does not.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, the clock should start and then quickly stop on the whistle as the touching itself is legal, meaning the contact was not made with the leg or a fist. It is just the location of that touching which is illegal. This is a subtle point and was clarified a couple of years ago when the NFHS committee added the word "legally" to the rule.

Do you have a citation? I'm not doubting you per se but the concept of the same act that both starts the stops the clock would result in time being run off doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me.