We've all agreed that on a throw-in, if the inbounder steps over the line it is a violation.

Yesterday I attended the rules interpretation meeting for Northern California, and now I'm not so sure. At that meeting we discussed players who never quite get OOB before throwing the ball. This will be called a violation. However, the only requirement for a legit throw-in is the player be officially OOB. That means if they step on the line, they are good-to-go.

Now I'm thinking about the inbounder that steps over the line, but their other foot is still on the floor OOB. I suspect there is something about breaking the plane, but will have to look in the book later. Thoughts?

Yes, a player who picks up the ball inbounds, then steps out-of-bounds with only one foot (other foot still on the floor inbounds) is OOB. The player meets the (new) requirement for a throw-in.

But, if the player never lifts the inbounds foot, the player will violate 9-2-11 NOTE. It's still a throw-in violation; the rule editorial change doesn't affect this.

To be legally out of bounds, you need to have one foot on the floor out of bounds. The other foot can dangle over the inbounds area. The rule revision only clarified what we are to do if the player never does go out of bounds before throwing the ball in. We had a vigerous debate on the of these boards and we never got anywhere. I think we had three posible ways of doing it. Some committee member saw it and we can be greatful to him for bringing it up last spring and getting a settled answer on what to do in the situation.

I respectfully disagree. We got directly and concisely to the absolute truth. Most of you, however, simply refused to agree with me :D

Chuck

Vigerous debate is all we need to leave it at.:)

Which is how we got to the absolute truth. :)

Hmmmmmm, I seem to remember hearing somewhere that a little thing called the -- what is it again? oh yeah -- the rulebook clearly, concisely and absolutely agrees with me!! :p :D

Chuck

:confused: No, there is no plane violation to this. 9.2.5 RB states that the ball can not be “Carried Onto” the court. In the CB it states “steps through the plane of the boundry line ‘And Touches’ the court.” You are not on the court until you touch it.

If someone has a copy of the Simplified and Illustrated I believe that there is a illustration that shows that there is no violation.

What ever happened to advantage/disadvantage. If it is just me and the inbounder, I myself will not be looking as hard at it. If it is close I will probable tell the player, make sure you get out of bounds......now if there is a press or pressure...i will be looking at it a lot harder.

AK ref SE

Hmmmm not sure i agree. Oooo what the heck, I disagree.

Not to change the subject, but advantage/disadvantage is only referred to in the rulebook in the context of a foul. Violations such as traveling, carrying the ball, and inbound violations are not subject to advantage/disadvantage, but should be whistled anytime they occur.

I agree with Andy to the point where the game has been decided. i.e. Score 50-30 with 3min. left the it is clear the game is decided.

[Edited by Bart Tyson on Oct 15th, 2002 at 03:20 PM]

Andy-

i do not agree that advantage/disadvantage only pertains to fouls....if a player is cominig up the court no pressure....knowone with in 30 feet....he/she carries the ball I will probably let it go, there was no advantage or disadvantage

As long as you call it a no call the rest of the game.

I understand your point, but you do not have authority or justification from the rulebook to not call a violation simply because a player is all alone. If this same player picked up the ball and ran around in a circle with no other players within 30 feet of him, would you not call a travel? Just something to think about.

Bart -- that's no way to start a fight! What kind of a ref are you anyway!? Show some teeth, get offended! It's good practice for throwing your weight around on the court during the season!

Hmmm your correct. Ummmm Richard, your definitely mistaken. There, I guess i told him. :)

Andy-

I understand your point of view. But show me in the rulebook, under the rules where it specifically states that a foul or no foul should be called on the interpretation of advantage/disadvantage. In the rule book contact is a foul, unless we consider it incidental contact.....so is all contact not called incidental or are we using the advantage/disadvantage philosophy? Just my point of view.
I do appreciate your posts....it has gotten the wheels turning for another season.

AK ref SE

The way I read it, incidental contact is that which does not cause an advantage. Take a look at 4-27-2 and 4-27-3.

Mark-
I understand incidental contact the way the rule book states it. The point that Andy made about: You cannot apply advantage/disadvantage when a violation occurs. Advantage/disadvantage applies to fouls only.

I did not agree....I do not see where Advantage/disadvantage is stated in the rulebook to apply just to fouls.

AK ref SE

Yes and no.
 

As I stated before I went to the NCAA Meeting in Chicago on Sunday. We were told in that arena (may not apply to most, but some might hold the philosophy) to not call palming or carrying the ball unless they are blowing by an opponent. We were also told not to call travelling on spin moves unless it is really obvious. Marcy Weston (Supervisor of Women's Officials) told us that, "these most of the time are violations by rule, but do not call them unless everyone in the gym see there is a violation." Of course I am paraphrasing her statements, but that is the gist of what she said.

I realize this is not the NF Interpretation or what many might think should not apply to HS level ball, but that is what might filter down to the HS level. I can guess that similar things were told to the Men's Officials, but this was stated as "how the game is suppose to look like."

Peace

Rut-
I agree with your post.

My opinion Advantage/Disadvantage can be applied to violations or fouls, or a guess a better way of putting it. Making a call or not making the call.

AK ref SE

I just wanted to make clear that there is a philosophy coming from the higher levels. And it was made very clear that this was the way things are suppose to be. And Marcy Weston and Barbra Jacobs both signed off on this philosophy and told us that coaches would be informed of this philosophy. Also the NF Basketball Rules Editor is Mary Struckoff (a D1 Women's Officials and loved by many Illinois Officials :)) there might conceivably see interpretations that might support the NCAA's philosophy. We will see if that is the case but time will tell.

Peace

Hey, Rut, did anyone raised their hand and ask, "Do you realize how much more crap we're going to get from howler..., I mean, coaches, with this philosophy?"

Because, basically, the philosophy means I, as a coach, can read the rule and case books (okay, stop laughing), and I still won't understand why the referee is T'ing me up for howling about the opponent who consistently travels/palms/carries.

I mean, seriously, if I have enough sense to ask a referee in a nice, non-threatening manner (well, some coach might) if so-and-so is palming when he makes such-and-such move, what will be the response? "Coach, we were told by the national governing body not to make that call unless the player uses the action to get by your player."

I'm really not trying to give the refs on this site a hard time. It just seems like points-of-emphasis like this make your job harder.

I guess its a lot like speeding. In most states, you won't get stopped unless you are speeding excessively.

Great analogy :)

Well there is a reason for no one asking. Coaches are much smarter and seasoned then most HS coaches. I personally have never heard a college coach b!tch the same way a HS coach does. Part of that reason is because being a college coach is a "real" job. This is all they do. They have to know the rules or be intelligent enough to realize when to complain and not to complain. Unless you are a Jim Keedy (Purdue Coach, I might have spelled his name wrong.) or Bobby Knight, you might not be complaining about a whole lot. And I know that Bobby K gets a bad reputation in places like here, but Officials that have done games with them have the upmost respect for him. And usually the stories that they tell of an encounter with Knight is very minimal and short. Most coaches are not going to be huffing and puffing over a carry call. And if they do they are only going to make a big issue at certain times in the game.

Peace

BTW,
 

The Officiating Coordinators have meetings with the coaches and tell them what the officials will be doing and way. There will be a NCAA Meeting with coaches that will help clear up any confusion before the season.

Peace

You are right, the POE's and various "philosophies" do make
it tough sometimes. But in your example, the smart ref will
not blame some national governing body for not calling a
palm. He'll say so-and-so isn't palming (if he's a good
liar) or he'll say thanks coach I'll watch for it (if he's
a good diplomat and a good liar) or he'll say OK coach and
blow the whistle the next time so-and-so touches the ball.

Yeah, and I know the "upmost" place they'd like to plant a good swift kick ;)

Chuck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

I just wanted to make clear that there is a philosophy coming from the higher levels. And it was made very clear that this was the way things are suppose to be. And Marcy Weston and Barbra Jacobs both signed off on this philosophy and told us that coaches would be informed of this philosophy. Also the NF Basketball Rules Editor is Mary Struckoff (a D1 Women's Officials and loved by many Illinois Officials :)) there might conceivably see interpretations that might support the NCAA's philosophy. We will see if that is the case but time will tell. Peace

As is said repeatedly on this board, call it the way your assignor wants it called. When you work for Marcy Weston, I mean, when I work for Marcy Weston, I'll call it her way. While I'm working for Howard Mayo, I'll call it his way. Others who read Jeff's post should keep in mind that different areas do things different ways. Just because Jeff was told at his college women's meeting to do it one way, does not mean that everyone else in the country should do that. Coaches around here really don't like the explanation that this is how the big kids do it -- especially after they have gone out of their way to discuss it with the assignor, and drill their players on legal maneuvers.

HUH???
 

Call it the way they tell you to? Call some traveling, but not others? Is this for real? As my rules guru always says, it's not about what you think, or the body thinks, or the crowd thinks, it's about the RULES! Either they carried, or they didn't! Also, a quick note on advantage/disadvantage--that's also horse puckey. To illustrate, what about screens? There's contact, and an advantage is gained, but is there a foul? Well, it depends on the situation (and not A/D) right? But how do we know if it's a foul? If only some group would publish a book...with guidelines, or maybe even rules!

Re: HUH???
 

First of all, theteeto, welcome to the board. I think you will learn a lot here and we always welcome thoughtful contributions. From the two posts you've made so far, I can only guess, but it sounds like you are a newer official. That's not an insult :) , it's just the impression I get from your posts. So I hope you will stick around. You will get a lot out of this board.

Actually, it is very real. We'd all love it if everybody called the game exactly per the book. And we'd all love it if our supervisors wanted each play called the same way. Unfortunately, not all assignors and supervisors share your outlook. And if we want to work games from these supervisors, we must have their approval. How do you get (and keep) that approval? By calling the game the way they want it called. That's just the fact of the matter.

Quote:

Also, a quick note on advantage/disadvantage--that's also horse puckey.

I respectfully disagree. And I don't think you'll find too many allies on the board, either. Advantage/disadvantage can certainly be abused and applied when it might be better not to, but the principles of Ad/Disad are clearly in the rulebook. There is such a thing as incidental contact (defined in Rule 4), which means that there is contact, but the contact did not give either player an advantage. So we don't whistle it. If we didn't apply Ad/Disad at all, we'd have 10 whistles on every possession.

Quote:

To illustrate, what about screens? There's contact, and an advantage is gained, but is there a foul? Well, it depends on the situation (and not A/D) right? But how do we know if it's a foul? If only some group would publish a book...with guidelines, or maybe even rules!

I see your point, but it's not as simplistic as that. Yes, there can be contact on a legal screen where contact is made; and this would not be a foul. Very true. Legal screens are pretty well defined in the rulebook. I would say that the contact could even be very hard without calling a foul on a legally set screen.

But now consider a screen that is not legally set. Ok, the offensive screener is moving and there is contact with a defender. But in this sitch, there's no advantage gained. Now do you have a foul? I hope not. Why? It's not b/c of the contact; it's b/c there was no advantage gained by the offense.

So the Tower Philosophy (Ad/Disad) is very important in keeping the game flowing and allowing the players to play without penalizing every single infraction that doesn't affect the game at all.

That's just my opinion, but I think you'll find it's shared by a lot of officials. Again, keep on posting, keep on reading. Glad you're here.

Chuck