Violation?
 

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.

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

Legal Play. Player is out of bounds.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Ed Zackery!
 

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 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.

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.

We discussed it here, too. Thanks for adding this, as I wondered if the officials would be getting the official finger wag (proverbially, of course).

Pretty sure its only an immediate violation if it becomes apparent that they will not be making the throw-in.

Sort of.
A1 steps towards out of bounds but doesn't quite make it before throwing to A2. The only way I'm not calling this immediately is if A2 is on his way OOB or stationary. And if he's stationary, his next move determines whether I call it. If he's at all heading "the other way" it's an immediate violation.

You should never get to 5 (unless you were already at 4).

Pretty sure you're wrong. I tried to tell you that the NFHS issued an interp specifically on this situation. Here it is:

1997 Interpretations:

That interpretation is now case book play 9.2.5SitA. Has been for a few years.

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong as per case book play 9.2.5SitA. It's the exact same play.

No, you should call an immediate violation as per case book 9.2.2SitC.

Well, there's only two possibilities, 100% and 0%. :)

Do You Have A Question Counselor?
 

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)

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?

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.

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

Only if he's legally 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.

Well then you need an additional point. Player location alone doesn't explain the violation, nor why there's no contradiction. :p

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.

You win.

I'm done.

It's a contradiction in Jarlandia.

Send Me Some Travel Brochures ...
 

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.

Whom ?? Where Did That Come From ???
 

To whom do I apply? Maybe Jurassic Referee can send me a travel brochure?

Another benefit is that in Hell you only have to discuss rules and you don't have to have any meaningless and endless discussions on what might or might not be the meaning of any particular word. And oh yes, they do have blarges here in Hell too. :)

Wordsmith ???
 

Didn't Bill Clinton do something like that? And you're right, the discussions seemed endless.

And metal whistles on red lanyards? [That fit neatly under the collared shirts].

Meaningless and endless discussions! Ain't that the truth!!!!! :(

I look at this forum and there it is....dozens of threads on simple, basic questions that have been thoroughly and accurately answered. Yet, there they continue on, pages and pages of ridiculous discussions of the simplest, most mundane rules.

Obviously, this ain't Hell. Wait, let me save BillyMac the trouble. I'll post the pic.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thum...ay-to-hell.jpg

I Know, It's Addictive ...
 

And yet, to our benefit, you keep logging on?

So is this your way of admitting that you were wrong?:)

Yes, I was completely wrong to make any response at all to your post #20. I should have just ignored it. Live and learn.

And if you feel that my initial response to your post #20 was wrong also, you can have that one also without any further argument from me too.

Now everybody should be happy.

Oh, I stay logged on. But it's rare you see me post after the 2nd or 3rd page.

Take this thread. I didn't post in it at all until JR pointed out how meaningless much of it was. Much of it is senseless.

Yes, it is to our benefit that he does so imo.

Yes, it's a contradiction. And?

And I thought that might be the reason for the confusion in the earlier post which resulted from the use of the phrase 100% out of bounds. Editorial revisions are made in the books pretty much every year. I thought this might be a likely place for one.

The rule is clear, so I'm not sure what sort of revision could possibly help. It's possible, but the confusion seems to stem from some sort of misconception that the ball's 3 dimmensional location is relevant.

9-2-5: The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court.

What does this mean? Thrower steps in with one foot. According to 4-35, this player is out of bounds. Has he carried the ball onto the court.

Proposed revision: The thrower shall not contact the inbounds area with the ball or any part of his person.

Gotcha. Either way, though, the OP is legal.

Hey, I know that, and you know that, but consider how many fans (and even some coaches) react when the thrower's foot simply touches the line.

Which Is Why They Should Call The Mythbusters ...
 

A player inbounding the ball may step on, but not over the line. During a designated spot throwin, the player inbounding the ball must keep one foot on or over the three-foot wide designated spot. An inbounding player is allowed to jump or move one or both feet. A player inbounding the ball may move backward as far as the five-second time limit or space allows. If player moves outside the three-foot wide designated spot it is a violation, not travelling. In gymnasiums with limited space outside the sidelines and endlines, a defensive player may be asked to step back no more than three feet. A player inbounding the ball may bounce the ball on the out-of-bounds area prior to making a throwin.

I had a teenage partner yesterday who had a metal whistle. Probably got it from his dad. Hadn't seen one in quite a while.