Throw in situation:

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Surely I'm not alone here in being confused and seeing the contradiction in our rules. The only ones that seem confident are Nevada and BBref... and yet they are opposed... I think.

Rule (9-2-11 Note) specifically states B1 may touch the ball without violating the throw-in provisions when A1 holds the ball across the plane - no Technical foul.

No rule says that A2 cannot touch the ball when A1 holds it across the plane. However casebook play 7.6.3B item (c) says it is a violation if the ball is handed to A2. It doesn't say touching is the violation but handing off to A2 is a violation. So despite the fact that we all like to say "If there is no rule disallowing the action, the action is acceptable." this is not true for this case. There is no rule disallowing a handoff but the case book specifically states that to hand the ball to a teammate is a violation.

This, however, is not true for the defense. As an act of defense, B1 can touch the ball or grab it (unintentional hand off?) from A1 when it is held across the plane. This is supported by 9-2-11 Note and CB 7.6.3A.

Additionally, as an act of defense, B1 can grab the ball and create a held ball situation. This is supported by CB 7.6.3F. In this case, the touch by B1 does not end the throw-in and does not create an OOB against A1. If the throw-in was an AP throw-in (Team A has the AP arrow), then Team A retains the AP arrow. If the throw-in was NOT an AP throw-in, it is now. Held ball go... to the AP arrow and give the ball to the appropriate team for subsequent throw-in.

After a touch by B1, A1 can pull the ball back across the plane, or wrestle it free from B1's grasp, and still complete his throw-in. This seems to also be supported by CB 7.6.3F.

AND THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS.... can A2 touch the ball when it is held through the plane by A1? I don't see a clear cut answer in the rules or in the casebook.

Despite the exception given above, I'm tending to lean towards the answer "If there is no rule disallowing the action, the action is acceptable." Perhaps we could infer that it is not allowed per 9-2-11 Note but I feel like that note is only saying that if A1 is dumb enough to hold the ball through the plane, B1 can touch it, hit it, grab it, steal it etc. without receiving a technical foul. I do not feel the Note says A2 cannot touch the ball in the same situation.

How do we decide? Is there a bigger dog/entity that can assist us? Could NCAA rules help us understand this situation? As much fun as it has been seeing postings of opposite interpretations and attempts to justify those interps, I would like to see a definite answer... no offense to either BBRef or NRef.

As an aside, we have also discussed the act of passing and seem to have decided that a handoff does not constitute a pass. We have said that bouncing the ball off the wall behind the passer so it enters the court violates 9-2-2. No one has said that throwing the ball straight up and catching it, or dribbling it violates 9-2-2... I guess because it is not entering the court? Someone please clarify this also.

I has been a very engaging discussion!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee I got this far in your posts,Nevada,before my brain started to go numb.Let me answer these.I'll try to answer the rest after I have a nap.
1)Throw-ins for non-AP violations under R9-2 NEVER end if a violation occurs?They are only INTERRUPTED?What happens to these interrupted throw-ins?When do they get applied?On the next throw-in?When do they end?Do they ever end?

According the NFHS rules they never end. The violation interrupts them just the way a foul or a time-out does. Now the penalty for the violation or foul is administered and the game continues from there. There is no going back!
The reason this is so is because of the way the NFHS rules book defines the word end. They do not use the Webster's definition, but provide their own definition. They tell us precisely what it means for a throw-in to end. Similiarly we are told what it means for a quarter to end. This is purely definitional and one must think out of the box here. Lawyers would have an easier time with this because quite often terms are given a legal definition that differs from their everyday usage. That is the case here.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I learned something here.I've never heard of an "interrupted throw-in" before.Could you point out the rulebook reference to me for that one?

No, I can't. The term interrupted is mine. I guess I could have used "a throw-in which never ends," but that is more confusing. As I wrote above, these throw-ins have no end as far as basketball defintions are concerned. In common language we agree that they ceased to continue, which means that they ended, but for NFHS rules there was no end. You can see this quite clearly when considering the AP throw-in that is stopped because of a foul. The reason that the arrow doesn't reverse is that the this throw-in never ended. We simply penalize what stopped the throw-in (in this case a foul) and then continue the game from there.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
2)If player A1 throws the ball from the backcourt into the frontcourt and simultaneously hits an an official and A2,the rule doesn't apply and the ball has never gone into the frontcourt?Are you sure of that?

JR, you have a sharp eye and I am glad that you make me clarify my statements. I am not saying that there is no rule which covers this situation, just that 4-4-4 does not cover the whole picture. When the ball hits two or more players simultaneously, we have to expand our thinking. If one player is inbounds and one is OOB, rule 4-4-4 by itself would not tell us whether the ball is to be considered inbounds or out-of-bounds. There is just as much merit for both. The rules committee therefore clarified with additional rulings that in the case of a multiple simultaneous touch if any player is OOB the ball is OOB. In your case the official is treated as part of the floor. If both the official and the player are inbounds in the frontcourt then the ball is now in the frontcourt. If either one is touching the backcourt or OOB the ball is in the backcourt or OOB. Hope that is clear.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
3)What part of R9-2 has a player violated when he steps onto the court?I don't think that that one is really a tuffy.Try R9-2-5-"Carry the ball onto the court".

I answered this in the post that you are quoting. If the player keeps one foot OOB is he on the court? I say no. He is OOB. It is obvious that when 9-2-5 says "Carry the ball onto the court" what it means is carry the ball inbounds, since it is certainly not a violation to be carrying the ball OOB during a throw-in. The rules committee simply got caught in their own definitions here. They wanted one foot stepping inbounds on a throw-in to be a violation, but realized that they had defined a player with one foot inbounds and one foot OOB to be OOB. Hence we have this casebook play to augment the rules.

If your brain is numb again, go have a brown pop!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by DMRefGal
Once you have touched A2 with the ball (or A2 has touched the ball), you have made "contact with the floor inbounds" because "A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual' s location." We already know the handoff is illegal, so, once A2 lets go after the touch, the ball is then back OOB in A1's hands. Right?

The crux of my argument is that this in not right. I maintain that when two or more players are touching the ball simultaneously 4-4-4 (the rule you quoted above for ball location) is insufficient because it does not tell us which of the two individuals' location should be used for determining the ball's location. If we view the situation from the point of A1, the thrower, A1 is OOB and is touching the ball the entire time so if we applied rule 4-4-4 to him, the ball's location would be OOB. See the problem? Therefore we must dig deeper and we all know that the rules committee made a decision that if any of the players touching a ball at the same time are OOB then the ball is OOB. As I wrote in an earlier post on this thread, during this play I believe that the ball NEVER obtains inbounds status since A1 never let go of it. Thus the ball was OOB the whole time, so there cannot be a violation for OOB.

Originally posted by DMRefGal

As long as both of them have their hands on the ball, there is no violation until:

a) A1 lets go of the ball - then you have a violation for the hand-off.

This I agree with. A1 has violated 9-2-2 since he has failed to PASS the ball inbounds. A pass and a hand off are not the same. This is made crystal clear in the casebook.

Originally posted by DMRefGal
b) A2 lets go of the ball - then you have a violation for OOB.

I maintain that this is a big NOTHING and play should continue.

Originally posted by DMRefGal
If A1 and A2 are both holding the ball and do not let go, and neither keeps a pivot foot, would there be a traveling call because the ball is touching an inbounds player and is not OOB until A2 lets go?

Since A1 never lets go, there has not been a throw-in pass and therefore the throw-in has not ended. Thus we are still conducting a throw-in. Furthermore, since 4-41-6 NOTE ..."Pivot-foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in effect for a throw-in."
You can't have a traveling violation either.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown Surely I'm not alone here in being confused and seeing the contradiction in our rules. The only ones that seem confident are Nevada and BBref... and yet they are opposed... I think.

Yes, we are. Tony/BktBallRef maintains that since the note after 9-2-11 says an opponent may legally touch or grasp the ball that a teammate cannot. I say that since there is nothing, including this note, that says a teammate may not touch or grasp the ball while the thrower is holding it, it is legal to do so. We are both basing our opinions on the rules and have reached opposite conclusions.

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Rule (9-2-11 Note) specifically states B1 may touch the ball without violating the throw-in provisions when A1 holds the ball across the plane - no Technical foul.

No rule says that A2 cannot touch the ball when A1 holds it across the plane. However casebook play 7.6.3B item (c) says it is a violation if the ball is handed to A2. It doesn't say touching is the violation but handing off to A2 is a violation.

Exactly.

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
There is no rule disallowing a handoff

Not true. Even I say that 9-2-2 covers this, since a hand-off and a pass are not the same thing. The thrower has failed to pass the ball. Therefore, it is a violation according to this rule.

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
In this case, the touch by B1 does not end the throw-in and does not create an OOB against A1.

Yes, and I say the same must be true when A2 touches the ball. Since the ball was never passed, the throw-in never ended, and the ball never became inbounds.

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Despite the exception given above, I'm tending to lean towards the answer "If there is no rule disallowing the action, the action is acceptable." Perhaps we could infer that it is not allowed per 9-2-11 Note but I feel like that note is only saying that if A1 is dumb enough to hold the ball through the plane, B1 can touch it, hit it, grab it, steal it etc. without receiving a technical foul. I do not feel the Note says A2 cannot touch the ball in the same situation.

This means you argee with me. Tony is going to have to admit that someone else out there agrees with me!

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
How do we decide? Is there a bigger dog/entity that can assist us? Could NCAA rules help us understand this situation? As much fun as it has been seeing postings of opposite interpretations and attempts to justify those interps, I would like to see a definite answer... no offense to either BBRef or NRef.

The whole point is to put yourself in the seat of a Supreme Court Justice and read the rules and make the interpretation yourself, rather than wait around for someone else to tell you what their opinion is. That is what Tony/BktBallRef and I have tried to do. There is no fun the other way.

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
As an aside, we have also discussed the act of passing and seem to have decided that a handoff does not constitute a pass.

That's right. Even Tony/BktBallRef and I agree on this.

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
We have said that bouncing the ball off the wall behind the passer so it enters the court violates 9-2-2. No one has said that throwing the ball straight up and catching it, or dribbling it violates 9-2-2... I guess because it is not entering the court? Someone please clarify this also.

I has been a very engaging discussion!

The clarification is that 9-2-2 is a restriction on how the ball is PASSED, nothing else. Neither tossing the ball up in the air and catching it or dribbling the ball constitute passing. Therefore, 9-2-2 has nothing to do with these actions and neither of them is a violation of this provision of the throw-in rule.
However, bouncing the ball off the wall in an attempt to make it rebound onto the court is considered a pass and since the ball did not go directly into the court, this is a violation. Yet I would not consider it a violation for a thrower to bounce the ball off the wall behind him to himself or to touch the ball to the wall while he is holding it, since I don't believe that either of these is a pass. More precisely, if Team A scores and B1 who is upset for getting burned on the play takes the ball OOB and slams it off the wall and then catches the ball clearly in a display of frustration and not an attempt to make a throw-in pass, then this is not a violation of 9-2-2.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 10th, 2003 at 07:03 AM]

[williebfree]

WOW! I did not think this situation could be so complex.

Having just reread four pages of dialogue, I am STILL not sure.... (Insert some absurd but appropriate animated gif here)

(hee hee hee)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by williebfree
WOW! I did not think this situation could be so complex.

Having just reread four pages of dialogue, I am STILL not sure.... (Insert some absurd but appropriate animated gif here)

(hee hee hee)

Willie,I think that this may be appropriate:

[williebfree]

I knew I could count on JR

[Mark Dexter]

I wish to register a complaint!

Originally posted by Nevadaref
If one player is inbounds and one is OOB, rule 4-4-4 by itself would not tell us whether the ball is to be considered inbounds or out-of-bounds. There is just as much merit for both.

Not really. First, just look at the other rules (all of the rules need to be taken with respect to one another and especially the case book). 7-1-2a clearly states that the ball is OOB when it touches "a player who is out of bounds."

Now, let's consider a ball rolling from the center of the court to the OOB line. In a perfect world, the ball would only contact the court at one point. However, as the ball rolls, its shape is distorted, and you will have a time where part of the ball is in contact with the floor on the inbounds side of the line and part is in contact with the out of bounds side of the line. Do you blow your whistle and call an OOB violation? I sure hope so.

So, if the ball is touching a player standing OOB, that ball has OOB status - it doesn't matter that someone is touching it inbounds!

The casebook is key here. There are several situations/topics which are covered only in the casebook - "lag time" and end of game delay tactics are only a few. The rules do not exist in a void; we have to go to the casebook for interpretations of the rules, and those interpretations are valid, whether it seems like there is support for them in the rules book or not!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I wish to register a complaint!

Go right ahead!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Not really. First, just look at the other rules (all of the rules need to be taken with respect to one another and especially the case book). 7-1-2a clearly states that the ball is OOB when it touches "a player who is out of bounds."

Now, let's consider a ball rolling from the center of the court to the OOB line. In a perfect world, the ball would only contact the court at one point. However, as the ball rolls, its shape is distorted, and you will have a time where part of the ball is in contact with the floor on the inbounds side of the line and part is in contact with the out of bounds side of the line. Do you blow your whistle and call an OOB violation? I sure hope so.

So, if the ball is touching a player standing OOB, that ball has OOB status - it doesn't matter that someone is touching it inbounds!

The casebook is key here. There are several situations/topics which are covered only in the casebook - "lag time" and end of game delay tactics are only a few. The rules do not exist in a void; we have to go to the casebook for interpretations of the rules, and those interpretations are valid, whether it seems like there is support for them in the rules book or not!

Mark,
I agree with you on this 100%! I have been making the case all along that 4-4-4 is not helpful for the situation involving the thrower, who is OOB holding the ball, and a teammate, who is inbounds, but touches the ball. Others have quoted 4-4-4 in their arguments. What you quoted from me above was part of my counter argument.
You may have misunderstood what you quoted from me a bit. Please notice that I wrote "rule 4-4-4 by itself." We are saying the same thing.
I will clarify that what I meant was that if one only considers 4-4-4 when trying to make a ruling on this play, then one cannot tell what location the ball has since it is touching one player who is inbounds and one who is OOB. If only 4-4-4 is applied, then there is "just as much merit" for arguing that the ball is inbounds or out-of-bounds. To that you sadly responded "Not really."
In no way am I saying that the rules are unclear on this. I believe they tell us that this ball is clearly OOB. I am only saying that 4-4-4 simply was not written to cover simulateanous touching, and therefore, cannot by itself provide a clear answer here.
So to summarize, I agree with you completely and am trying to convince others who are participating in this thread that, as you say, looking other rules and cases, tells us that

Originally posted by Mark Dexter if the ball is touching a player standing OOB, that ball has OOB status - it doesn't matter that someone is touching it inbounds!.

Thank you for making my point so very clearly.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 13th, 2003 at 12:36 AM]

[Back In The Saddle]

This has been a very interesting discussion!

I would like to throw out a couple of more thoughts, just to see what the Supreme Court Justices think

First of all, does it make any difference to the discussion that A1 is LEGALLY out of bounds? The arguments stating that the ball is OOB because it is touching A1 seem to imply the usual state of affairs--a violation because the ball is touching A1 who is ILLEGALLY out of bounds. But this is not the case. Would he not still be LEGALLY OOB until the throw in ends? In the case of handing the ball into A2, the violation is not because it is touching A1 OOB, rather it is a failure to pass the ball inbounds.

Second, the rules cited to define when a ball/player is OOB are all framed from the point of view of play occurring inbounds. In such a case it is essential to define when an OOB condition occurs. However, in a throw in situation, play is occurring OOB and it becomes necessary to define when an inbounds condition occurs. Thus a thrower, who is OOB, violates when he puts one foot on the floor inbounds. It is the mirror image of a player inbounds becoming OOB by placing one foot OOB.

Perhaps there are hundreds of holes in these two ideas, but I wanted to know what you think.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I think BITS has hit on something important here.... WHEN DOES THE BALL GAIN INBOUNDS STATUS?

I want to say that inbounds status is only gained once A1 lets go of the ball... to the contrary there is the casebook play (7.6.3F) of the held ball with A1 out and B1 in. Is this contrary?

Perhaps this is a critical viewpoint that will settle the matter?

The ball is never inbounds until A1 lets go of it. And with the extension of the rules (CB 7.6.3B) A1 may not handoff to A2 - he may inadvertantly let B1 take it from him (act of defense) but may not offensively hand the ball to A2.

Hopefully, after all this discussion I will be sharp enough to let A2 touch but not take the ball from OOB A1... when it happens in a game. I'll kick myself if I call it differently.

Was that a 1/4 inch pass A1? I thought so...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
The ball is never inbounds until A1 lets go of it.

Then why is it a violation if A1 steps onto the court while he's holding the ball?

[DownTownTonyBrown]

It's either because he is wearing a yellow shirt or perhaps there is a specific rule (9-2-5) covering this COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION.

I'm not betting on the yellow shirt deal.

[Nevadaref]

BITS,
Here are my opinions on your questions:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

First of all, does it make any difference to the discussion that A1 is LEGALLY out of bounds?

The difference it makes is that A1 is not charged with an OOB violation. It makes no difference concerning the ball's inbounds or OOB location.

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

However, in a throw in situation, play is occurring OOB and it becomes necessary to define when an inbounds condition occurs.

This is the correct way to look at this. Examine rule 7 and 4-4 to get a good understanding of how the NFHS has defined this.

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Thus a thrower, who is OOB, violates when he puts one foot on the floor inbounds. It is the mirror image of a player inbounds becoming OOB by placing one foot OOB.

I wish the NFHS would change this rule and define a thrower still holding the ball to be inbounds when the player touches inbounds. Then I would agree that 9-2-5 has been violated. However, the NFHS defines this thrower to still be OOB, as long as one foot is touching OOB, and also to not have left the designated throw-in spot, since one foot is still on or over it. I feel that they took the easy way out and chose to only provide a casebook play saying that touching the court inbounds is a violation. Notice that they don't say why it is a violation! I am not pleased that they left the rules untouched, since according to the rules as they are written, the thrower has not violated. It is only a violation because the Case Book play, 7.6.3SitB(b), says that it is.




[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 16th, 2003 at 02:22 AM]