2010-11 NFHS Rule Changes
 

2010-11 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES CHANGES

2-8-5; 3-3-8: Changed the guidelines and procedures for identifying and removing a player who exhibits signs, symptoms and/or behaviors consistent with a concussion.

3-5-3a: The list of permissible headband and wristband colors was changed to include any single solid school color.

10-3-6i; 10-5-5: Specific rules were added to address the unsporting acts of a player leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust or intimidation and team members leaving the bench area and/or playing court for an unauthorized reason.


2010-11 MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES

3-3-1a NOTE; 4-34-2: Clarified that when a substitute is not properly reported, the players in the game at the conclusion of the quarter/when the time-out was granted shall begin play for the new quarter/after the time-out. During an intermission, all team members are bench personnel for the purpose of penalizing unsporting behavior.

3-4-2d: Clarified that a school or conference logo/mascot may be located at the apex/opening of the neckline, in the corresponding area on the back of the jersey and/or in the either side insert.

3-5-2: Clarified the requirements for guards, casts and braces and that a protective face mask shall be worn molded to the face.

6-1-2: Clarified that the ball becomes live on a throw-in and a free throw when it is at the disposal of the player and the official begins the count.

7-6-6: Clarified that when the ball is awarded to the wrong team, the mistake must be rectified before the throw-in ends.

2010-11 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

1. Rules Enforcement
2. Sportsmanship
3. Perimeter Play
4. Closely-guarded Situations
5. Principle of Verticality

2-8-5: This won't be as bad as the comparable rule in football, but anybody who gets an elbow in the head will now have to sit.

3-5-3: So the list is now: white, black, beige, dominant color of the torso of the uniform, or a school color? This might be the season I stop policing headbands... why not just change it to "all teammates have the same color" and leave it at that?

Now I don't have to explain to a home team why they can't wear green at home, but can on the road. Good change, IMO.

Don't have my rulebook. Why did 6-1-2 need clarifying?

Current passage below...

ART. 2 . . . The ball becomes live when:
a.On a jump ball, the tossed ball leaves the referee’s hand(s).
b.On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.
c.On a free throw, it is at the disposal of the free thrower.
NOTE: Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved
unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed.
For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before
the ball becomes live.

2010-11 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

1. Rules Enforcement
2. Sportsmanship
3. Perimeter Play
4. Closely-guarded Situations
5. Principle of Verticality[/QUOTE]

*6 ACT OF SHOOTING! is it just me or does it seem like 90 percent of the time in HIGHSCHOOL, refs are to quick to wave of the shot and not let them "continue" after they are fouled?

2-8-5; 3-3-8: Changed the guidelines and procedures for identifying and removing a player who exhibits signs, symptoms and/or behaviors consistent with a concussion.

So we will be receiving training into properly identifiying these items? IMO, it would be best if we just left it to the discretion of the training/medical staff of the teams. BUT since I haven't read the changed guidelines then maybe that is what they did

No, of course not. You will be expected to research it yourself. And if you don't, you can expect a lawsuit when you let a concussed individual continue to play. Let's hope the NFHS and state association insurance covers us. :(

I imagine the level of training you receive will likely depend upon your state. Here's the NFHS Parents' Guide to Sports Concussions. Additionally, while I haven't read the basketball rule yet, the rule books that already have this change spell out what to look for (loss of consciousness, headache, dizziness, confusion, or balance problems). They should add nausea and vomiting to that list.

This is change that is making it's way into all the NFHS rule books. I think it's a good change. I've got to believe most people will know if a kid took a blow to the head on the basketball floor and later has trouble walking or throws up. I'm a little worried about football, since hard contact occurs so often in that game and it's more difficult to see what's going on under a helmet and behind a face mask.

All this talk about lawsuits is giving me a concussion. :o

To me, this should fall in the same category as eligibility rules; completely up to the coach.

So, they haven't really changed anything about the game itself and have relaxed the headband colors.....and they'll sell 10'000's of rule books to the officials across the US to pay for them to have done nothing. Sounds like it is time for bi-annual rules cycle (if it wasn't already). Even if they charge a bit more to maintain their net income levels, it will still be cheaper overall and will not consume as many resources.

Well then, you can't referee again until you come back with a doctor's note and have both coaches and the hot mom at the table clear you.......

You mean I get to have the hot mom examine me? Oh boy. I hope she asks me to turn my head and cough! :eek:

Let me address a couple things. POEs are not just for officials. POEs are for coaches that teach their players and the players that play the game. Many of the things we see that are put in the POEs are not just because officials do not call things, it is also because coaches and players do not understand the application of those rules. The best example I can give is a few years ago when one of the POEs was about slapping the backboard. It was funny how many times a slap of the backboard took place and coaches (and their players) wanted points to be counted, even though the rule was emphasized to not have that perception. It did not stop every time this took place a coach thought the officials did not know the rule or had to try to tell officials this was a POE. I can honestly say I have not seen many officials screw up that rule but once or twice in my career and it is usually non-high school sanctioned games where I see that mess up. In other words, the officials may or may not have been licensed to work regular high school games.

The part about "Act of Shooting" is much more of a problem with coaches and players because they think that if you are not airborne and throwing the ball in the basket at the moment you are fouled, you are not in the act of shooting. Usually the officials that get this wrong are newer officials that do not understand the current rules on when a player is in the act of shooting. But veterans tend to get this right more often and award properly shots on a foul. But it is the coaches and players that are often asking, "He was on the floor right?" Or they say "This is not the NBA" which ironically is just about the same rule as in college and high school.

Peace

That's an interesting editorial change. So on a free throw the ball can be at the disposal of the thrower but not be live. So if B2 shoots an elbow to the ribs of A2 before we start our count it would be a Technical instead of a personal foul. Same on throw-ins.

I don't think this represents a change. We're already supposed to start the count when it's at the thrower's disposal.

For the record the NF clarified the responsibly of the officials on this in football. In other words, if the player is back in the game from when we take them out of the game, it is assumed they have been reviewed by medical personnel. And in basketball it would be a lot easier to determine if a kid had some issues with a head injury as there is no helmet and there are fewer players on a team.

Peace

"At disposal", "live ball" and "count" all start at the same time. If you have one, you have them all. If you don't have one, you don't have any.

The only "change" here is for those who didn't understand the above concept.

This clarification came out to all NCAA-W officials last year, clarifying when exactly the ball was "at the disposal" for a thrower in. It was something we already knew, but of course, something crazy happened so the NCAA put out a clarification on it and since Mary Struckoff is a big chiefess on both sides, it trickled down to the high school game.

Here are the problems as I see them:1. A player hits the floor hard and takes awhile getting up and leaves the game. The player checks in at the table to return to the game but the officials don't let the player back into the game b/c they feel he/she is "concussed" (if that is a word, it is a cool one) The team with said player loses b/c their star is unable to return to the game b/c of the medical opinion of someone who is not trained to give a medical opinion. 2. Players collide with each other, but there is no apparent concussion. The player leaves the game, and when they return show "no signs symptoms etc" of concussion and finish the game. After the game, the player experiences headaches, nausea and vertigo and then is rushed to the hospital where he is found to have a severe concussion.
Again, very few if any officials are qualified to notice these things. How many medical/health things do we leave in the hands of the trainers/doctors yet when it comes to concussions WE have to make a determination? Can you imagine an official telling a player they can't wear that knee brace b/c that official doesn't think there really IS a knee problem? I will be asking several questions at our state meeting and if the season started today, probably not let ANY player who hit the floor hard and left the game come back in. As the saying goes "Better safe than sued!!":cool:

That's what I always thought.

I thought maybe the change was put in for cowards. :D

I would agree, but the clarification in football (where this is much more of a realistic concern) was that all we do is send them off. After that, we are not involved. So if a player comes back in, it is assumed that they have been checked out. The only issue is if the player is deemed to be unconscious as normal. Your state or any state can take a harder line on this and require more documentation, but as it stands from football, this will be really on the coaches. The wording that came out is the exact same as other sports so far, but the application was not made very clear. Now it was made clear in football and it appears we really are not involved. We just send off a player we think has a concussion and move on. I agree we are not the best people to determine this, but in basketball it is a lot easier to see a player cannot function. In a sport like football it is very hard and the same kind of hand-eye coordination is not the same or as obvious considering many players in football might not be around the ball.

Peace

I really don't see this as a big problem for officials either. The new wording states that "IF" they are sent off due to possible concussion concerns, they can not come back in unless cleared by medical personnel. I don't think it says anywhere that we have to be medical experts on concussions. But if I see a kid bang his/her head on the floor, get up and stagger around, I'm going to call the coach/trainer in and have them taken out of the game (same as I would have in previous seasons). Now, it's on the coach/school to have someone there to check them out and be the "medical personnel" who allows them back into the game.

counts and live ball
 

I'm not very bright, granted, but I think the begin-the-count clarification is useful. "at the disposal" is linquistically vague, although we alll have a pretty good idea what they mean. But some of us wait a half-chop either until the thrower has full possession or if it's an offensive end line throw-in, may hand the ball, take a step away and start. But then anyone who has split hairs over this has bigger problems than the rules committee can ever solve.

Well the wording did say that we were to identify concussion symptoms. It was not just the fact that we send them off; it was what information we went by to show that they were checked out properly. If a player is knocked unconscious, that player cannot come back in the game without a note from a MD or DO. This policy has no such standard and used a very vague term "Medical Personnel." That could be anyone just by the language. And it required officials verify who that person might have been. The NF clarified this a little more and I think partly was because the language they originally came out with was vague as to how we knew who was examining a player. And honestly, I have no problem sending a kid out that has an issue that is obvious. I do still have a problem with knowing someone has a concussion when so many of the symptoms are not "obvious." Of course it is easy to know what to do if players hit their heads together. But many concussion symptoms are not identified until much later. So if a player at first showed signs of a concussion and then came back in the game, it would be hard to know they were evaluated properly or who actually evaluated the issue. I know trainers that cannot say for certain a player has a concussion until they have been thoroughly examined by a doctor that even specializes in this kind of injury. It appears the NF has clarified their wording and basically puts more responsibility on coaches and schools for this kind of examination where it should be.

Peace

How about we actually get some changes that would improve the game?

I still want to see one of these lawsuits when it happens.

Plaintiff: We wish to sue this official for not recognizing my client, a minor child, might have had a concussion.

Judge: Why is the official responsible?

Plaintiff: NFHS rules 2-8-5 and 3-3-8.

Judge: Are you kidding?

Plaintiff: Uh........no?

Judge: The rules you mention have nothing to do with the law. A basketball official is not a doctor. (dammit, Jim) No law that I am aware of would make this defendant liable. Next case.

JUST - I'll take you on with that line of reasoning.
Your honor, this official by consent and/or contract has agreed with the rules set forth in the NFHS rule book. By passsing the annual NFHS examthis official is "certified" by the national governing body. A body, which I may add, is established to monitor the rules and safety of athletes such as my client across America. As such, it is reasonable to assume that this official accepts, condones and adheres to the rules and policies set forth by the governing body. The rule book clearly states that it is the responsibility for the official to know the sign/symptoms of a concussion. Clearly in my clients case this official was negligent in their duties. Because of this negligence, my client experienced pain and suffering, not to mention the added anguish, pain and uncertainty that this minor's parents suffered.
I cite In Loco Parentis and Duty of Care as reasons this suit should continue.
I would also probably name the NFHS (along with the coach, school, AD, principle, and school district) because they did not give their officials proper instruction in diagnosing concussions!! But that is just me

I agree. Better would be "any single solid color for all team members."

Do we now have to know the official school colors for each competing school? Must we debate with the coaches whether green is one of their school colors? :(

I think it needs to be made clear that not every state uses the NF tests or considers the same score as passing. So it would be a little flawed to suggest that simply passing a test (in my opinion) from the NF means were are "certified" by the national govening body. For one, I can only work in one state right now and my passing tests do not apply to other states unless I go through their process, which might mean I would have to talk a completely different test.

This is where I completely agree with you if no other language is used. But it appears that other language will be used to clarify our role in this rule as it has been in football as I explained earlier. But I think the language is very slippery and puts more responsibility on us as officials for things we are not trained to do. These issues are ultimately the responsibility of coaches, trainers and parents that deal with these players. Not sure why anyone thinks we can identify something like a concussion when doctors cannot agree on when and concussion has occurred just by only a few of these very narrow symptoms.

Peace

And your honor, my other client is clearly seen committing a traveling violation in the video which was not called. Immediately after the reckless maneuver said client tore his ACL. We demand satisfaction.

To all this I say: Poppycock!

"I'm sorry coach, all those headbands are illegal. Your school color is plainly forest green, and those headbands are just as plainly kelly green."

I didn't say the plaintiff would win. But, even defending a lawsuit can be expensive. Like I said, I hope the NFHS and State Associations' insurance covers us. I'm pretty sure the NFHS Officials Association General Liability Insurance does, so that part was a little facetious.

Sports officials find their decisions, actions challenged in court
Limited Liability for Sports Officials
Officials Legal Liability

Indeed, these links mostly agree with you. Officials are generally not held responsible in court unless they are found to be acting in bad faith (fraud) or are grossly negligent. On the other hand, look how many actually made it to court and won, before being reversed on appeal.

Even if I'm not paying for it, being party to a lawsuit is a horrendous, miserable experience, and nobody will compensate me for that. I resent the NFHS for increasing the risk that I will be sued by making me responsible for medical decisions about players.

Every kid in our local kids rec league is covered by an insurance policy we pay for (costs are covered by registration fees) against injury plus all parents must sign a waiver of liability to protect the league and it's representatives including officials. This has been in effect for over 20 years and was instituted by a former Board member who is a personal injury attorney.

JRut - I was giving the offiical the benefit of the doubt in passing the state test. If said official had NOT passed the test and was officiating a sanctioned game as an official who was NOT certified....wow, that would be a home run for the plantiff.

JUST - The play you described would easily fit under an assumption of risk clause. Further it would have no bearing on the case as this was a case regarding a concussion not a torn ACL. Now if you wanted to show a pattern of negligence, you may be allowed to introduce evidence that shows a history of injuries during this officials game but that may or may not work. If you were to actually be allowed to use that defense, it would be very easy to get video of 1000s of "missed travel" calls that resulted in no injury whatsoever. The point being that iti is a reasonable to assume that 'missed travels' do not result in debilitating injuries. To push the point, show video of contact that caused concussions, preferably, one that looks a WHOLE LOT like the contact in the lawsuit. Finally, you are actually making the plantiff's case for them. IF you are arguing that this official should enforce the traveling rule, then it shold follow that the official should be required to enforce the rule on concussions.

MBYRON - Amen brother!

Judtech: Are you a lawyer? (Very serious question bTW)

This is why I think the NF has really errored on this issue. There really is no way we should be identifying specific injuries. All we should be doing is determining if a player is injured, not trying to determine what kind of injury and something like a head injury. ESPN's "E:60" last night did a story on a player that had multiple concussions in football games and was debilitated. I am not sure this is something we can identify from our position. I have no problem sending off a kid that is not able to play or appears to play, but not diagnose why they cannot play and then be partly responsible for if they come back in the game. As I said before football has cleaned up or clarified this on some level, but why even open this up to us. We do not know many of the situations a kid might identify such an injury. And if officials have been sued for calls in games and injunctions were held to allow the court to review whether someone advances in the playoffs, why would we not expect some lawyer to try to find some reason to sue an official over some language the NF decided to put into the situation? These are Doctor, coaches, schools and a parent issue, not an officiating issue.

Peace

Just a couple of things

-Insurance covers things but insurance can seek to recover their costs. (just ask the football officiating crew that was sued because a coach was run over by an official when the coach was on the field..

- Basketball has dangers and playing it will create some sort of assumption of the risk.

-The standard practice is many states is to have parents sign liability waivers for their kids. It really has limited effect (put parents on notice etc) However in some states parents can waiver THEIR ability to claim but parents cannot waive the rights of a minor to seek damages...( Parents cant sue if they waive but minor still can with a guardian ad litem)

-Most negligence cases are decided because the party did not exercise the care of a reasonable person (in our case a reasonable referee) Of course we know many unreasonable refs but that is a different story. All we have to do is exercise appropriate care. In the case of the concussion, although not obvious all the time you can tell why the player went down.... If it appears that there are the blackouts, dizziness etc we tell the coach we are invoking the concussion rule and if there is any error it will be made on the safety of the child. The player does not come in until released by a physician.

We also carry D&O insurance that protects our Board members if something happens while acting in their capacity as a Board member. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover our referees because they are all independent contractors. It won't cover me when acting as a referee even though I'm on the Board.

I can just see me in court now on a concussion case.

Judge: "So later in the game, when he stumbled off the bench, walked around in circles bumping into things and was babbling incoherently, you didn't think there was anything wrong?"

Me: "Are you referring to the player or the coach?"

I'm very late to this party. Sorry. I followed the link from a more recent thread. I just want to comment on one post:

I disagree with this. The ball can be at a player's disposal long before the official starts the count. When the ball clears the net after a goal, and a player from the throw-in team catches it, the ball is obviously at his disposal. He's holding it, so it's obviously available to him to begin the throw-in process. This is true even though the official usually doesn't start the throw-in count until the player is out of bounds.

Similarly, if the official puts the ball on the floor in the free throw circle next to the free throw shooter, the ball is available to the shooter. It's right there for her to pick up and try for goal. This is true even though the official probably won't start the count until she has moved into her normal Trail (or Center) position.

The point of the clarification is that the non-throw-in team can be granted a time-out request after a basket even if the throw-in team player is holding the ball (ball is available to him), because the ball doesn't become live until it is available AND the official starts the count.

There had been some very technical debates about whether we should grant a time-out request from the scoring team in late game situations when the ball falls through the basket and into the hands of a player from the throw-in team. Technically by the old rule, we should NOT grant the time-out in that situation, because the ball became live as soon as it was at that team's disposal. But most of us DID grant those requests anyway. So the clarification was made to bring the rules in line with practice.

I think you are confusing the "dictionary" definition of "at disposal of" and the "rules" definition.

By rule, a ball which falls through the basket into B1's hands is not at the disposal of B1 until either:
- B1 walks out of bounds and faces the court, thereby actually being able to make a throw-in pass.
- or team B delays enough that the official deems that the team should be in position to make the throw-in and starts the count then.

Just because the ball is or isn't in B1's hands, on the floor next to B1, or "available" are extraneous pieces of information, that do not in and of themselves matter when determining whether the ball is at the disposal of a player. That is, they play a part in the whole picture, but we need to know more about this situation, including where the player is standing and for how long.

With all due respect, I think you need to read 4-4-7. There is no rules definition of "available", but there is a definition of "at the disposal". All it says is that the ball is at the disposal of a player when it's available to a player after a goal. The new clarification says the ball becomes live when the ball is at the disposal AND the official has started counting. It's not enough anymore to be simply at the disposal in order for the ball to be live. That's the point.

Which rule is that, exactly?

I read through the pertinent rules / cases a bit more thoroughly and I'll agree that what I wrote was in error to the current rules.

Going through what happens during a throw-in, we have these things that have to happen:

A. Ball becomes live.
B. Ball is at disposal of thrower.
C. Throw-in begins.
D. Throw-in count begins.

6-1-2 (now) tells us that the ball is live (A) when the ball is at the disposal of the thrower (B) and the official starts his count (D).

4-4-7d: Ball is at the disposal of a player (B) following a made goal when it is available to him.

4-42-3: The throw-in (C) and the throw-in count (D) begin when the ball is at the disposal of the player entitled to it (B).


So I think that a problem lies that 4-42-3 tells us that B (disposal) causes D (count begins) and C (throw-in begins) to happen immediately. Now, 6-1-2 tells us that A (ball live) occurs when B (disposal) and D (count begins) happen, even though B (disposal) is supposed to have already caused D (count begins).


So Scrapper, if you aren't confused by the jumbled mess that I wrote above, I believe that what you said is that after a made basket, the ball is at the disposal of the thrower (i.e. available to him). But if the official does not start counting, then the ball is not live, per the change to 6-1-2. However the official not counting is directly in contradiction to 4-42-3.

1) If the official doesn't start the count as soon as the ball is placed on the floor, that official isn't following the rules...specifically NFHS rule 8-1-2--"The ball shall be placed at the disposal of the thrower or placed on the floor and the count shall begin."

2) As per SITUATION #9 in the 2006-07 rules interpretations issued by the FED.....
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html
In that situation, the throwing team is holding the ball in-bounds.

Disposal implies that the player is in a location or could/should have been in a location to execute a legal throwin. Due to the ball deflecting off someone, the player may catch the ball 20ft. from the endline and would not be in a location where they could immediately execute a throw-in. The ball is not at their disposal in this case. The ball would not be live and the count would not start.

The count starts simultaneous with disposal and live ball...always has....and that is when the player is (or could have been) in a position with the ball to make a throwin.

That is the whole point of the CLARIFICATION. Nothing changed, just that many misunderstood and were misapplying the rule.

Incorrect. Nothing has changed. They've only clarified the rule to correct those who were mistakenly applying the rule as you stated in the red text.

Here is where you're making the error. You're making the assumption that catching the ball is equivalent to available. It is not. Available mean that it is available in such a way that the player could make a legal throwin with it. Standing inbounds is not a legal place to make the throwin. So, the player has to take the ball to a spot where they can make the throwin....then, and only then, is it availble for the throwin, at their disposal, and live. (EDIT: or have time to take it to a spot wher they can make the throwin)

Number Nine, Number Nine, Number Nine ...
 

SITUATION 9: With less than one minute to play in the fourth quarter, Team A scores a field goal to tie the game. B1, standing under the basket after the score, secures the ball and begins heading to the end line for the ensuing throw-in. A1 requests and is granted a time-out. RULING: Legal procedure. Team A may request and be granted a time-out until the ensuing throw-in begins. The throw-in does not begin until B1 has the ball at his/her disposal and the official has begun the five-second count.

I gotta disagree with this. I had a team last year deliberately delay in picking up the ball after a made basket in order to set up their press break. The ball was bouncing on the floor, obviously available to a player. I started my count. The coach immediately grasped this. "Gotta go! He's counting!"

*6 ACT OF SHOOTING! is it just me or does it seem like 90 percent of the time in HIGHSCHOOL, refs are to quick to wave of the shot and not let them "continue" after they are fouled?[/QUOTE]

And when you let it continue you hear, "This ain't the NBA!!"

Per IHSA, once we send a player off, we are responsible to send in a report to Bloomington, whether the player returns or not. Coach tells us when he returns.

I would hold off on that until we get confirmation before the basketball season. They changed the policy in football twice and I would not be surprised if things that take place during the football season might make them rethink the policy or come up with another set of procedures.

Peace

And when you let it continue you hear, "This ain't the NBA!!"[/QUOTE]

Yes. Too many officials wave off shots that should be shooting fouls, but because the ball is not leaving the shooter's hand, they don't award free throws. Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't read the rule book.

I do not think reading is the problem, I think a lack of understanding is.

Peace

Keep my full statement (and in context with my statement in the post just prior to the one you quoted) and you'll not disagree. I made it quite clear that a player who could have been OOB with the ball has it at his disposal.

What's odd about the concept of 'availability to the thrower' is that it's disjunctive, depending on the context: it's either about the ball (in ordinary plays) OR about the thrower (in plays where the thrower is delaying).

That complicates the criteria officials must apply when judging whether the ball is available. In one case the criteria involve the ball ACTUALLY being available for a throw-in, but in the other the ball is merely POTENTIALLY available for a throw-in. In the latter case we have to assess whether the player is intentionally or negligently preventing the ball from actually being available.

Hell, I could teach a modal logic class around this case! :D

I just have to disagree with this. If the ball falls through the net and a kid from the throw-in team catches it, it's available to him. I don't think it matters if the ball is inbounds or out of bounds, or being held or on the ground. If a player from the correct team can easily get the ball, that's "available". I don't see what else "available" can mean.

One question...the second it falls through the net and the player grabs it, can that player execute a legal throwin? No. They're usually not OOB. It is not available for a throwin yet. To be made available for the throwin, it has to be in a spot where the throwin can legally occur (or there must have been time for a player to have taken it to such a spot).

This is really the only way the rules make any sense. Otherwise, you would, have to start a count on a player who picks up a ball after a made shot even when the ball comes out of the net oddly and bounces to midcourt. That is because live ball, count, available and disposal all start simultaneously....and we know that we don't count when the ball is retrieved at midcourt.

You ref in a different sphere than me...........ain't no hot moms at the tables where I ref. Just cranky old battle-axes and crones.

Ok, I can usually handle one question. Thanks for keeping it simple. :)

I agree, but the question you pose is irrelevant. Because. . .

There is no mention of being "available for a throw-in" in the rules. NFHS 4-4-7d simply says that the ball is at the disposal of a player when it's "available to a player after a goal". It doesn't even say it has to be the player who will make the throw-in, let alone that the player must be out of bounds. The ball just has to be available for a player to pick up. That's all it says. If a player can easily access the ball and then start the throw-in procedure, then the ball is available to him/her.

In this situation, the correct thing to do is not to start the count, but to stop the clock so game time is not wasted and retrieve the ball. Then the ball becomes live when thrower-in catches the ball from the referee.

Then what else is it available for?

It doesn't say that at all. How far from the endline must the ball for it to not be "available" when a player picks it up? 2 feet? 5 feet? 15 feet? 30 feet? What rule provides that limit?

You can't answer those questions because they have no backing in the rules...either direct or implied.

It (live ball, count, disposal, etc.) either starts when a player picks up the ball without regard to location (not mentioned) or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Therefore, the only conclusion that is supportable by rule is that the ball must be (or could have been in the case of a deliberate delay) available to actually make the throwin.....OOB.