Violation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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]

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.

[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?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Only if he's legally inbounds.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

You win.

I'm done.

It's a contradiction in Jarlandia.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.