The Official Forum
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/61443-violation.html)

Jurassic Referee Sun Jan 30, 2011 01:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 723649)
Pretty sure its only an immediate violation if it becomes apparent that they will not be making the throw-in.
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong as per case book play 9.2.5SitA. It's the exact same play.

Jurassic Referee Sun Jan 30, 2011 01:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 723595)
You would probably then end up with a 5-second violation if the players don't recognize what happens and goes back to make a proper throw-in.
No, you should call an immediate violation as per case book 9.2.2SitC.

mbyron Sun Jan 30, 2011 02:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The R (Post 723589)
From my angle the foot was 100% OOB. (I was sitting quite a few rows up to the side of the baseline where this happened.
Well, there's only two possibilities, 100% and 0%. :)

BillyMac Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:09pm
Do You Have A Question Counselor?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 723767)
Well, there's only two possibilities, 100% and 0%.
He told you his answer. 100%. Now stop badgering the witness.

(Maybe he meant that he was 99% sure that the ball was 100% out of bounds)

just another ref Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:22pm
I assume he meant that the player was touching only out of bounds, as opposed to the foot extending across the line.

Good question, actually. By definition, (4-35-2) When a player is touching....out of bounds the player is ........... out of bounds.

Yet, according to 9.2.5 B it is a violation when A1 touches B1 (who is inbounds)
it is a violation, because the touch gives A1 inbounds status.

A contradiction, is it not?

Jurassic Referee Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 723787)
I assume he meant that the player was touching only out of bounds, as opposed to the foot extending across the line.

Good question, actually. By definition, (4-35-2) When a player is touching....out of bounds the player is ........... out of bounds.

Yet, according to 9.2.5 B it is a violation when A1 touches B1 (who is inbounds)
it is a violation, because the touch gives A1 inbounds status.

A contradiction, is it not?
Why is it a contradiction?

All you're doing is using the exact same inbounds/OOB criteria on different rules. You use the exact same status definitions for a player in-bounds going OOB as you do for a player OOB coming inbounds, don't you?

mbyron Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 723800)
Why is it a contradiction?

All you're doing is using the exact same inbounds/OOB criteria on different rules. You use the exact same status definitions for a player in-bounds going OOB as you do for a player OOB coming inbounds, don't you?
So you're saying that the violation is for illegally crossing the boundary. A player who is legally inbounds may not touch anyone/anything OOB, and a player who is legally OOB may not touch anyone/anything inbounds.

just another ref Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 723800)
Why is it a contradiction?

All you're doing is using the exact same inbounds/OOB criteria on different rules. You use the exact same status definitions for a player in-bounds going OOB as you do for a player OOB coming inbounds, don't you?

Any other time, if a player is touching both places, he has out of bounds status.

mbyron Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 723803)
Any other time, if a player is touching both places, he has out of bounds status.
Only if he's legally inbounds.

Jurassic Referee Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 723801)
So you're saying that the violation is for illegally crossing the boundary. A player who is legally inbounds may not touch anyone/anything OOB, and a player who is legally OOB may not touch anyone/anything inbounds.
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the criteria listed in rule 4-35 always apply and there's no contradiction anywhere when you do apply 'em. That was my point.

mbyron Sun Jan 30, 2011 03:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 723809)
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the criteria listed in rule 4-35 always apply and there's no contradiction anywhere when you do apply 'em. That was my point.
Well then you need an additional point. Player location alone doesn't explain the violation, nor why there's no contradiction. :p

just another ref Sun Jan 30, 2011 04:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 723809)
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the criteria listed in rule 4-35 always apply and there's no contradiction anywhere when you do apply 'em. That was my point.

4-35 says a player who is touching out of bounds is out of bounds.

9.2.5 B says A1 has the ball out of bounds but when he touches B1 inbounds he now has inbounds status.

Furthermore, 7-1-1 tells us that touching a person who is out of bounds does not cause a player who is inbounds to be out of bounds.

Jurassic Referee Sun Jan 30, 2011 04:09pm
You win.

I'm done.

It's a contradiction in Jarlandia.

BillyMac Sun Jan 30, 2011 04:20pm
Send Me Some Travel Brochures ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 723817)
It's a contradiction in Jarlandia.
That reminds me. I have to renew my passport. My new daughter-in-law is from China. My new son-in-law is from Australia. Maybe a side trip to Jarlandia would be fun. Is it difficult to get a tourist visa?

just another ref Sun Jan 30, 2011 04:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 723822)
That reminds me. I have to renew my passport. My new daughter-in-law is from China. My new son-in-law is from Australia. Maybe a side trip to Jarlandia would be fun. Is it difficult to get a tourist visa?
Get a visa to visit hell. Apparently one of the benefits of living there is you are never wrong.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36am.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1