Violation?

[The R]

BJV game. A8 scores. B2 has possession of ball and steps one foot out of bounds and lifts the other over a spot inbounds. The ball never passes through the line out of bounds.
So he has something out and nothing touching inbounds while holding the ball on the inbounds side of the line. He passes to B4.

Legal play or violation?
NFHS rules.


The crew whistled a violation and team A was awarded the ball for a throw in.

[OnePutt]

All you need to establish in or out of bounds is one foot. Ball position is not a factor.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by The R

...So he has something out and nothing touching inbounds while holding the ball on the inbounds side of the line...

Legal Play. Player is out of bounds.

Originally Posted by The R

The crew whistled a violation and team A was awarded the ball for a throw in.

Are you 100% sure the players foot was completely out?

[grunewar]

OOO. Happens all the time.

Now, if you had said he stepped a little bit on the court..... well, that opens up a whole new school of thought and discussion.

[The R]

Originally Posted by grunewar

OOO. Happens all the time.

Now, if you had said he stepped a little bit on the court..... well, that opens up a whole new school of thought and discussion.

Hey Grune let's say he was never completly OOB and passed the ball in....

[SNIPERBBB]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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.

This is an immediate throw-in violation. Don't wait for the 5-second count. The NFHS issued an interp on this a few years ago. I'm sure it's in the "archive" thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by The R

Hey Grune let's say he was never completly OOB and passed the ball in....

Let me ask this, on inbounding endline violations do you ALWAYS blow the whistle or only sometimes? 30 point blowout? Only during a close game? When there's no one there but you and the player to see it (and the player doesn't even know)? 5th grade level? Varsity HS level?

Game management vs so what vs who cares vs really?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Let me ask this, on inbounding endline violations do you ALWAYS blow the whistle or only sometimes? 30 point blowout? Only during a close game? When there's no one there but you and the player to see it (and the player doesn't even know)? 5th grade level? Varsity HS level?

Game management vs so what vs who cares vs really?

This was recently NOT called in a University of Kansas game, where there was no pressure on the throw-in, and it ended up on the Arbiter in a video bulletin telling NCAA officials to call it, regardless of time/score/pressure.

[The R]

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.

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Legal Play. Player is out of bounds.

Are you 100% sure the players foot was completely out?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by The R

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]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

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?