out of bounds pass

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9-2-2 "...is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court..."

9-2-2 deals with the throw-in provisions exclusively. The above statement is one of the requirements necessary to avoid this violation only. If the player in question who touches the ball is out of bounds, this is a violation in 9-3-2, which also deals with the throw-in pass. This tells me that the ball was not "legally touched."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

9-2-2 deals with the throw-in provisions exclusively.

Yep, and we are discussing a throw-in play.

Originally Posted by just another ref

The above statement is one of the requirements necessary to avoid this violation only. If the player in question who touches the ball is out of bounds, this is a violation in 9-3-2, which also deals with the throw-in pass.

True.

Originally Posted by just another ref

This tells me that the ball was not "legally touched."

And you would be incorrect about that as well.


2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

[Camron Rust]

Nevada, you're so far in left field its funny. You're citing rules that have nothing at all to do with how/when the clock starts. For you "on the court" definition, how about you cite the rule on LGP that inidicates that "on the court" means inbounds? That would be equally relevant.

The clock starting/stopping rules have nothing to do with the rules for what makes a legal throwin.

If the initial contact is also simultaneous with a violation, the correct procedure, if both the throw-in and violation are being covered by the same officials, is for the official to whistle and indicate by keeping the hand raised that the ball has become dead and the clock should not start. It is just plain dumb to chop time in after you see a violation as the ball is already dead. Why would you start the clock after a violation?

[tjchamp]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, and we are discussing a throw-in play.

True.


And you would be incorrect about that as well.


2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

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).

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, and we are discussing a throw-in play.

True.


And you would be incorrect about that as well.


2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

Your condescending tone is unbecoming, even when you're right.

No offense, but that's because you aren't an official and don't know much about the rules.

In this case, I agree with Camron. Nothing you quote here supports your position.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The clock starting/stopping rules have nothing to do with the rules for what makes a legal throwin.

Originally Posted by just another ref

In this case, I agree with Camron. Nothing you quote here supports your position.

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.

[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.