The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Lane Violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/67975-lane-violation.html)

jhc2010 Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:16pm

Lane Violation?
 
B1 loses his balance while keeping both feet in his designated lane space. His hand touches the floor in the lane and he stands back up prior to the free throw shot. Violation? Citation??

bob jenkins Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:17pm

Yes.

jhc2010 Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:18pm

Where in the rule/case book?

Raymond Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:21pm

Assuming NFHS.

Look under 9-1-3 in the Rule Book and Situation L for the respective rule in the Case Book.

Adam Sat Apr 23, 2011 08:52pm

This is a recent change, IMS.

BillyMac Sat Apr 23, 2011 09:46pm

Oldest Trick In The Book ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 752861)
This is a recent change.

The old pushup in the lane trick.

(Apologies to Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86)

26 Year Gap Sat Apr 23, 2011 09:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 752877)
The old pushup in the lane trick.

(Apologies to Maxwell Smart, Secret Agent 86)

*throws shoe[phone] at Billy*

Camron Rust Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 752861)
This is a recent change, IMS.

No it isn't. It has always been that way. There was a recent ruling issued because some didn't understand it.

Adam Sun Apr 24, 2011 09:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 752895)
No it isn't. It has always been that way. There was a recent ruling issued because some didn't understand it.

Was 9-1-3d always worded the way it is now?

Just checked:
In 2008-2009, it did not include the phrase "by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space." It may have been their intent, but this is a rule change; for clarification perhaps, but still a rule change.

Hugh Refner Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:33am

I had a game last season in which a HS girl was on the floor trying to grab the ball and when she touched it, her pony tail was OOB. Yep - I called it. When I explained it to her, she just laughed. OK - not a "lane violation" but similar.

Camron Rust Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 752973)
Was 9-1-3d always worded the way it is now?

Just checked:
In 2008-2009, it did not include the phrase "by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space." It may have been their intent, but this is a rule change; for clarification perhaps, but still a rule change.

It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

Adam Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753178)
It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

<strike>Fair enough.</strike>
What Scrapper says below....

Scrapper1 Mon Apr 25, 2011 01:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753178)
It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

I'm going to disagree. This was not a clarification of the rule. It was a change in the rule to make it what had been intended. The rule as previously written was not ambiguous. It was very clear that the violation was caused by the FOOT breaking the plane.

The rule was substantially changed, although it was changed through "editorial" process. This is a practice that is, IMHO, regrettable; and has been used too frequently in recent years.

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 753221)
I'm going to disagree. This was not a clarification of the rule. It was a change in the rule to make it what had been intended. The rule as previously written was not ambiguous. It was very clear that the violation was caused by the FOOT breaking the plane.

The rule was substantially changed, although it was changed through "editorial" process. This is a practice that is, IMHO, regrettable; and has been used too frequently in recent years.

Go into your old files and check the 2009-10 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes that were initially posted on the FED website. Under " 2009-10 NFHS MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES" you will find:

9-1-3d <font color = red>Clarified</font> that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space(36 inches by 36 inches).

It was a CLARIFICATION under NFHS rules, as Camron said.

I lent that year's rulebook out, but I'd bet that's how it shows up at the front in the new rules changes too. Of course I don't have a clue what IAABO printed. Maybe they were making up their own rules again. :D

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 03:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753187)
<strike>Fair enough.</strike>
What Scrapper says below....

What Scrapper said? Or what the NFHS said? They're completely different.:)

Adam Mon Apr 25, 2011 03:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753251)
What Scrapper said? Or what the NFHS said? They're completely different.:)

My opinion is that it was a rule changed advertised as a clarification. They clarified their intent by changing the wording of the rule which changed the rule itself. I recognize that others disagree, and I differ from Scrappy only in that I think there was some ambiguity in the rule before. It was, at least, open for interpretation.

Sort of like the clarification of the backcourt exception limiting it to three situations rather than any situation which does not involve active Team Control.

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 03:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753255)
My opinion is that it was a rule changed advertised as a clarification. They clarified their intent by changing the wording of the rule which changed the rule itself. I recognize that others disagree, and I differ from Scrappy only in that I think there was some ambiguity in the rule before. It was, at least, open for interpretation.

Sort of like the clarification of the backcourt exception limiting it to three situations rather than any situation which does not involve active Team Control.

My opinion is that it is exactly what it says it is...and no amount of Randalizing is gonna change that. The rule did NOT change.

The Fed stated that it was a clarification of an existing rule, just the same as case plays are. Clarifications are NOT rules changes.

Adam Mon Apr 25, 2011 03:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753257)
My opinion is that it is exactly what it says it is...and no amount of Randalizing is gonna change that. The rule did NOT change.

The Fed stated that it was a clarification of an existing rule, just the same as case plays are. Clarifications are NOT rules changes.

Now that's just mean.

I'm going to go sulk now.

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 04:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753258)
Now that's just mean.

I'm going to go sulk now.

See attached while you're sulking....:D


http://www.sabo.cc/downloads/2009-10...es_Changes.pdf

Adam Mon Apr 25, 2011 04:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753260)
See attached while you're sulking....:D


http://www.sabo.cc/downloads/2009-10...es_Changes.pdf

Hmmm.

Question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9-1-3g
Clarified that a player occupying a marked lane space must have one foot positioned near
the outer edge of the free-throw lane line with the other foot positioned anywhere within
the designated 36 inch lane space.

Are you saying the rule, prior to 2009-10, required the players along the lane to have at least one foot near the lane side of their space? Or was that a change dressed up as a clarification?
:confused:

Scrapper1 Mon Apr 25, 2011 04:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753257)
My opinion is that it is exactly what it says it is...and no amount of Randalizing is gonna change that. The rule did NOT change.

That's just BS. The rule didn't say what they wanted it to say, so they changed the rule and called it an editorial change. But the rule clearly (no clarification needed) changed.

rockyroad Mon Apr 25, 2011 04:47pm

As I remember things, the editorial change was made because players were stepping backwards out of free throw lane spaces to talk to other players, coaches, etc...so the editorial change was put in there to address that. Placing a hand in the key was always a violation, wasn't it?

Adam Mon Apr 25, 2011 05:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 753270)
As I remember things, the editorial change was made because players were stepping backwards out of free throw lane spaces to talk to other players, coaches, etc...so the editorial change was put in there to address that. Placing a hand in the key was always a violation, wasn't it?

That explains the change to 9-1-3g, which was also to address the reverse spin out of the space. The RC wanted players to have to start near the lane.

But it doesn't at all explain 9-1-3d, IMO.

Camron Rust Mon Apr 25, 2011 05:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753261)
Hmmm.

Question:

Are you saying the rule, prior to 2009-10, required the players along the lane to have at least one foot near the lane side of their space? Or was that a change dressed up as a clarification?
:confused:

I'd say that is a change that is dressed up as a clarification.

The original rule forbade leaving the space (3'x3'). Separately, a foot breaking the plane of the space was also prohibited. There was nothing in the original rule that indicated, either explicitly or implicitly, that touching outside of the space was legal or not aside from considering it to be a way to leave the space.

Since the restrictions on the feet were clearly covered in other parts of the rule, what else would "leave a marked lane space" have possibly meant that wasn't already covered by the foot restrictions? Aside from touching the floor outside of the space, can you come up with any way to leave it without breaking the plane with your feet and without touching the floor outside of the space?

They merely clarified the rule make it clear that touching outside of the space was considered to be leaving the space.....even though it was all along.


From 03-04...

ART. 6 . . . No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space.
ART. 7 . . . The free thrower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket or the free-throw semicircle line.
ART. 8 . . . A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket.
ART. 9 . . . A player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by a lane-space mark or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (12 inches by 36 inches) designated by a neutral zone.

As for the rule on keeping a foot near the lane line???? I don't know where they pulled that one from but it wasn't from anything in the rule.

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 05:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753273)
But it doesn't at all explain 9-1-3d, IMO.

The FED explanation for 9-1-3d is that it's a clarification of an existing rule. And no amount of obfuscation is gonna change that. Note.. that's not my opinion; that's exactly what is written in the NFHS link cited above.

It is what it is. If you guys want to argue, take it up with the NFHS rulesmakers. I'm just the messenger. Feel free to write them and tell them it's a rule change and not a clarification. Be sure to let us know how that turns out.

But if it will make you feel any better, Randy agrees with you and Scrappy. And he says to tell you that you're both doing him proud. :D

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 05:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 753270)
Placing a hand in the key was always a violation, wasn't it?

Sureashell was.

Adam Mon Apr 25, 2011 05:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753277)
The FED explanation for 9-1-3d is that it's a clarification of an existing rule. And no amount of obfuscation is gonna change that. Note.. that's not my opinion; that's exactly what is written in the NFHS link cited above.

It is what it is. If you guys want to argue, take it up with the NFHS rulesmakers. I'm just the messenger. Feel free to write them and tell them it's a rule change and not a clarification. Be sure to let us know how that turns out.

But if it will make you feel any better, Randy agrees with you and Scrappy. And he says to tell you that you're both doing him proud. :D

As Camron noted, there's nothing in the original version of that rule that defines what it means to leave the lane space. It could certainly have been inferred, but it wasn't in the rule. Yeah, they clarified their intent by expanding and changing the wording of the rule.

But again, that same link you gave me states 9-1-3g was also a "clarification." IOW, "The FED explanation for 9-1-3g is that it's a clarification of an existing rule."

Either the word doesn't mean what you think it means, or the NFHS isn't exactly consistent with this term.

Jurassic Referee Mon Apr 25, 2011 05:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753280)
As Camron noted, there's nothing in the original version of that rule that defines what it means to leave the lane space. It could certainly have been inferred, but it wasn't in the rule. Yeah, they clarified their intent by expanding and changing the wording of the rule.

But again, that same link you gave me states 9-1-3g was also a "clarification." IOW, "The FED explanation for 9-1-3g is that it's a clarification of an existing rule."

Either the word doesn't mean what you think it means, or the NFHS isn't exactly consistent with this term.

I think that what I think doesn't matter. The NFHS explicitly stated that it was a freaking clarification of an existing rule. I know that because I posted a FED document that states that. Whether the FED is consistent with the term or not is completely irrelevant. It just is what it is. And what it is is not worth Randalizing imo. The play was always called that way afaik anyway.

Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias.

BillyMac Mon Apr 25, 2011 07:14pm

By The Book ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753286)
The play was always called that way anyway.

You're correct. That's the way all of us would have called it in a real game, in real time. But I do remember some discussion, I believe on this Forum, if the "pushup" in the lane, by the book, was, or wasn't, a violation.

BktBallRef Mon Apr 25, 2011 08:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753249)
Go into your old files and check the 2009-10 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes that were initially posted on the FED website. Under " 2009-10 NFHS MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES" you will find:

9-1-3d Clarified that a player leaves a marked lane space when he or she contacts any part of the court outside the marked lane space(36 inches by 36 inches).

It was a CLARIFICATION under NFHS rules, as Camron said.

I lent that year's rulebook out, but I'd bet that's how it shows up at the front in the new rules changes too. Of course I don't have a clue what IAABO printed. Maybe they were making up their own rules again. :D

OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/slap.gif

Raymond Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753178)
It was an editorial clarification, not a change in the rule....which means the "rule" was always that way before but enough people didn't understand it so they "clarified" it, not changed it. The additional words make it "clear" that touching outside the spot is (and always has been) considered to be leaving the spot.

Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. :cool:

Adam Tue Apr 26, 2011 07:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753286)
I think that what I think doesn't matter. The NFHS explicitly stated that it was a freaking clarification of an existing rule. I know that because I posted a FED document that states that. Whether the FED is consistent with the term or not is completely irrelevant. It just is what it is. And what it is is not worth Randalizing imo. The play was always called that way afaik anyway.

Y'all carry on though. I'm going to tend to my petunias.

I'll agree that the rule was always supposed to be the same as it is now, so calling the change a clarification makes sense.

But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple.

Adam Tue Apr 26, 2011 07:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753354)
Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. :cool:

Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

Jurassic Referee Tue Apr 26, 2011 08:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753404)
But the NFHS calling it a clarification doesn't make it so; reference the 9-1-3g. They called that a clarification, but it was a rule change plain and simple.

OK, Randy. :rolleyes:

If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change.

And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

mbyron Tue Apr 26, 2011 08:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753415)
And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

Oh, you're not alone. :)

Raymond Tue Apr 26, 2011 09:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753405)
Are you saying it needs to be clarified under the new TC rule, or that it needs it anyway?

Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

Adam Tue Apr 26, 2011 09:22am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 753415)
OK, Randy. :rolleyes:

If you insist it was a rule change, then even though the NFHS unequivocably stated it was only a clarification and that it has also been universally called that way for the last 50 years at least, then it absolutely has to be a rules change.

And I blame myself for even bothering to argue this kinda crap.

I appreciate your indulgence, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not referring to the hand in the lane rule, I agree that the rule has always been called that way. I was wrong before.

I'm referring to the change that requires at least one foot to be "near" the lane. They were "clarified" the same year, but one was clearly a change and one was clearly a clarification.

Adam Tue Apr 26, 2011 09:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753422)
Needed it anyway, IMO, in both rule sets.

How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?

Raymond Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753425)
How is the current rule unclear (NFHS)?

I'm out of town on business so no access to my NFHS rule books. If you can quote me the 10-second rule I can elaborate.

Adam Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

Team control and BC status are required for a count.

tref Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:19am

Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753447)
Team control and BC status are required for a count.

I still believe "a player" refers to pc after the throw-in has legally ended &
"or his team" refers to any tc after pc has been established.

Call me Randy, but I just cant see beginning a 10 second count before the throw-in has legally ended.

Adam Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tref (Post 753450)
Originally Posted by paraphrased
A player or his team may not be in continuous control of the ball in the backcourt for 10 seconds.

I still believe "a player" refers to pc after the throw-in has legally ended &
"or his team" refers to any tc after pc has been established.

Call me Randy, but I just cant see beginning a 10 second count before the throw-in has legally ended.

Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.

tref Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753455)
Hopefully, they'll word the change to address this, but simply adding TC to the throw-in would change the rule in this regard. We can't see doing it the other way because it's a very basic thing now; 10 second count doesn't start until a player on the court establishes PC. But the only reason for that is TC is required for the count and doesn't exist on the TI.

I think "Player" is superfluous here, because PC in the BC is technically not required for a 10 BC violation.

True! If it could only be the same across the board :(

College officials:
Since tc already exists on throw-ins when do you begin your count, when the ball touches the wood or when a player gains control?

Camron Rust Tue Apr 26, 2011 01:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753354)
Sorta like I think the 10-second BC count should be clarified?

The free throw lane rule had a lot more verbiage but yet it needed to clarified? Imagine that. :cool:

It only needs to be clarified for some. The rest understand it as it is. :rolleyes:

Raymond Tue Apr 26, 2011 02:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 753447)
Team control and BC status are required for a count.

I would like for them to actually use the phrases "Team Control" and "Back Court Status".

We can on folks all the time for not using proper terminology yet this rule fails to do so on this particular rule.

Of course this is just my opinion. YMMV.

rockyroad Tue Apr 26, 2011 02:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tref (Post 753473)
True! If it could only be the same across the board :(

College officials:
Since tc already exists on throw-ins when do you begin your count, when the ball touches the wood or when a player gains control?

Well, since there is no 10 second count in NCAAW, we don't have to worry about it.

Raymond Tue Apr 26, 2011 03:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753506)
It only needs to be clarified for some. The rest understand it as it is. :rolleyes:

Are we supposed to take a Camron Rust sponsored poll before a rule can be further clarified?

Still waiting for answer to these (NCAA rules):

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits A2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits B2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

When does the 10-second count start for those 2 situations based on the clearly written rule?

tref Tue Apr 26, 2011 03:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 753537)
Well, since there is no 10 second count in NCAAW, we don't have to worry about it.

:)

Correction: NCAAM Officials, when do you begin your 10 second count?

Adam Tue Apr 26, 2011 03:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753536)
I would like for them to actually use the phrases "Team Control" and "Back Court Status".

We can on folks all the time for not using proper terminology yet this rule fails to do so on this particular rule.

Of course this is just my opinion. YMMV.

A "Player" or his "Team" may not be in "control....."

The terms are there, just not in order. The sentence flows fairly easily as is, and the meaning isn't difficult to ascertain. Curious how you would word it if given the opportunity.

Camron Rust Tue Apr 26, 2011 03:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753538)
Are we supposed to take a Camron Rust sponsored poll before a rule can be further clarified?

Still waiting for answer to these (NCAA rules):

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits A2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits B2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

When does the 10-second count start for those 2 situations based on the clearly written rule?

Well, we were discussing the HS rule in its current state since the topic was about how you felt the starting of the count in the backcourt had always needed clarification...not how it may need clarification under the new rule change. None of these questions were at all relevant.

In any case, here are the answers to both your questions from the most recent (2011) NCAA casebook...
A.R. 229. The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his/her front court near the division line.
(1) A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in his/her front court and while airborne, controls the ball, and then lands with one or both feet in the back court.
(2) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by B1. The ball bounces into Team A’s front court. While the ball is bouncing in Team A’s front court, it is deflected into Team A’s back court, where A3 retrieves it.
(3) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by A2, who fumbles it into the back court. A2 then goes into the back court and recovers the fumble.

RULING: (1) Violation. When B1 deflected A1’s inbounds pass, his/her legal touching caused the throw-in to end. A1, having established front-court status when he/she left Team A’s front court, gained player and team control in the air. When A1 lands with one or both feet in his/her back court, he/she has committed a back-court violation. The exception to the back-court rules are only applicable for the player who made the initial touch on the ball.
(Rule 4-68.4 and 4-3)
(2) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court. (Rule 9-12.1)
(3) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court.(Rule 9-12.1 and 4-3
It appears that the NCAA considers a team to have team control for the purposes of fouling during thrown in but doesn't consider true "team control" to exist for anything else until the ball is caught/dribbled inbounds (player control).

Two of your questions are directly answered above and one can be deduced.

tref Tue Apr 26, 2011 03:46pm

So basically the bc count begins upon pc after the throw-in has ended, even though tc existed on the throw-in (for fouling purposes).

rockyroad Tue Apr 26, 2011 03:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753538)
Are we supposed to take a Camron Rust sponsored poll before a rule can be further clarified?

Still waiting for answer to these (NCAA rules):

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits A2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

BC throw-in. A1's entry pass hits B2 in the leg and the ball lands in the BC.

When does the 10-second count start for those 2 situations based on the clearly written rule?

Again, in NCAAW there is no 10 second back court count...

Raymond Tue Apr 26, 2011 04:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753547)
Well, we were discussing the HS rule in its current state since the topic was about how you felt the starting of the count in the backcourt had always needed clarification...not how it may need clarification under the new rule change. None of these questions were at all relevant.

In any case, here are the answers to both your questions from the most recent (2011) NCAA casebook...
A.R. 229. The ball is at the disposal of Team A for a throw-in. A1 attempts to throw the inbounds pass to A2, who is located in his/her front court near the division line.
(1) A1’s pass is deflected by B1. A2 leaves the playing court in his/her front court and while airborne, controls the ball, and then lands with one or both feet in the back court.
(2) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by B1. The ball bounces into Team A’s front court. While the ball is bouncing in Team A’s front court, it is deflected into Team A’s back court, where A3 retrieves it.
(3) A1’s throw-in pass is deflected by A2, who fumbles it into the back court. A2 then goes into the back court and recovers the fumble.

RULING: (1) Violation. When B1 deflected A1’s inbounds pass, his/her legal touching caused the throw-in to end. A1, having established front-court status when he/she left Team A’s front court, gained player and team control in the air. When A1 lands with one or both feet in his/her back court, he/she has committed a back-court violation. The exception to the back-court rules are only applicable for the player who made the initial touch on the ball.
(Rule 4-68.4 and 4-3)
(2) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court. (Rule 9-12.1)
(3) Legal. This is not a back-court violation since neither player nor team control had been established in the front court.(Rule 9-12.1 and 4-3
It appears that the NCAA considers a team to have team control for the purposes of fouling during thrown in but doesn't consider true "team control" to exist for anything else until the ball is caught/dribbled inbounds (player control).

Two of your questions are directly answered above and one can be deduced.

Those are throw-in exceptions for back court violations. You say "It appears that the NCAA considers ..." If that is your definition of how the 10-second count rule is "clearly" written then I'm glad I don't work for you.

If they added about 10 words to the 10-second rule an official wouldn't need to deduce anything from a totally unrelated rules reference. I guess you prefer searching all over the book instead of adding 10 simple words.

And considering the amount of times I put "(NCAA)" in my posts on this subject, and that my original statement was during a discussion about when to start a 3-second count on a throw-in, or that almost all my rule references come from NCAA-M I thought it was clear I was talking about team control throw-ins. Or at a minimum you should have been able to deduce it.

Camron Rust Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753560)
Those are throw-in exceptions for back court violations. You say "It appears that the NCAA considers ..." If that is your definition of how the 10-second count rule is "clearly" written then I'm glad I don't work for you.

If they added about 10 words to the 10-second rule an official wouldn't need to deduce anything from a totally unrelated rules reference. I guess you prefer searching all over the book instead of adding 10 simple words.

And considering the amount of times I put "(NCAA)" in my posts on this subject, and that my original statement was during a discussion about when to start a 3-second count on a throw-in, or that almost all my rule references come from NCAA-M I thought it was clear I was talking about team control throw-ins. Or at a minimum you should have been able to deduce it.

FYI, the conversation was about NFHS, not NCAA. The NCAA wording was not relevant. As far as I can tell, before your post, there was no mention of NCAA in this topic. And in the other thread, there was no mention of NCAA until after your statement about you believing the rule should have been clarified.

Camron Rust Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 753560)
Those are throw-in exceptions for back court violations. You say "It appears that the NCAA considers ..." If that is your definition of how the 10-second count rule is "clearly" written then I'm glad I don't work for you.

If they added about 10 words to the 10-second rule an official wouldn't need to deduce anything from a totally unrelated rules reference. I guess you prefer searching all over the book instead of adding 10 simple words.

And considering the amount of times I put "(NCAA)" in my posts on this subject, and that my original statement was during a discussion about when to start a 3-second count on a throw-in, or that almost all my rule references come from NCAA-M I thought it was clear I was talking about team control throw-ins. Or at a minimum you should have been able to deduce it.

FYI, the conversation was about NFHS, not NCAA. The NCAA wording was not relevant. As far as I can tell, before your post, there was no mention of NCAA in this topic. And in the other thread, there was no mention of NCAA until after your statement about you believing the rule should have been clarified.

If you've made additional statements, fine, I don't memorize them.

Raymond Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 753622)
FYI, the conversation was about NFHS, not NCAA. The NCAA wording was not relevant. As far as I can tell, before your post, there was no mention of NCAA in this topic. And in the other thread, there was no mention of NCAA until after your statement about you believing the rule should have been clarified.

If you've made additional statements, fine, I don't memorize them.

Well, considering the conversation was about making the NFHS rule the same as the NCAA rule....

But I guess you were more intent on making it seem like I couldn't comprehend a "clearly written rule". Guess I'm not the only one who can read something and not find clarity. :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1