Since we seem to have some new people on the board, and since it's summer, I thought I'd post another situation that never really was resolved. It concerns the delay of game warning for reaching over the boundary on an inbounds play. Here's the scenario.

A1 to inbound (spot or not is irrelevant). A1 releases ball toward court, but before it crosses the endline, it is touched by B1 who reached across the line after the ball was released.

The NF rulebook is not clear on the call. There are three possibilities: 1) no call (this theory is espoused by those who think that all restrictions end once the ball is released toward the court) 2) it is a warning (most former posters agreed with this - of course if it was the second warning, it would be a T) or 3) it is a technical foul against B1, the same as if B1 hit the ball while A1 was still holding it (we were told by a poster that this interpretation came from Howard Mayo, a member of the NF rules committee).

What do you think? Some former posters said to call it whatever way your association tells you to, but in this case (a strict rule interpretation, not a mechanic or subjective situation), I think that's a cop-out. This should be clarified in the rulebook, or at least be in the casebook.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
Since we seem to have some new people on the board, and since it's summer, I thought I'd post another situation that never really was resolved. It concerns the delay of game warning for reaching over the boundary on an inbounds play. Here's the scenario.

A1 to inbound (spot or not is irrelevant). A1 releases ball toward court, but before it crosses the endline, it is touched by B1 who reached across the line after the ball was released.

The NF rulebook is not clear on the call. There are three possibilities: 1) no call (this theory is espoused by those who think that all restrictions end once the ball is released toward the court) 2) it is a warning (most former posters agreed with this - of course if it was the second warning, it would be a T) or 3) it is a technical foul against B1, the same as if B1 hit the ball while A1 was still holding it (we were told by a poster that this interpretation came from Howard Mayo, a member of the NF rules committee).

What do you think? Some former posters said to call it whatever way your association tells you to, but in this case (a strict rule interpretation, not a mechanic or subjective situation), I think that's a cop-out. This should be clarified in the rulebook, or at least be in the casebook.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mark

As a new user of this forum, but having 22 years of experiance as a referee in Australia using FIBA Rules. I belive the answer to be a "T" would be the letter of the law how ever, game managment would allow me to provide a warning if the ball went into play and to the right team gained pessession. If the ball was hit away and the oposition gained the ball, what then? Do we call a "T" strait away? I belive I would.

This is where it comes down to man managment and try to prevent this occuring inthe first place.

Regards

Macca from down under!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Macca:

Mark

As a new user of this forum, but having 22 years of experiance as a referee in Australia using FIBA Rules. I belive the answer to be a "T" would be the letter of the law <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there a FIBA rule that supports this? I am really asking if there is a correct answer based on a rule interpretation.

Thanks.

BTW - is it true that under FIBA rules, you count 3 seconds in metric? http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

99-2000 NF rule book 7-6 art 3
"The opponent(s) of the thrower in shall not
have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundry plane until the ball has been released on a throw in pass."

The key is was the hand thru the plane prior to the release. If it is blow the warning as soon as it breaks the plane and you wont have
to worry about the T. The majority of the time you only have to warn the team once and they back off the rest of the game.


------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PAULK1:
99-2000 NF rule book 7-6 art 3
"The opponent(s) of the thrower in shall not
have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundry plane until the ball has been released on a throw in pass."

The key is was the hand thru the plane prior to the release. If it is blow the warning as soon as it breaks the plane and you wont have
to worry about the T. The majority of the time you only have to warn the team once and they back off the rest of the game.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the post, it states that B1 did not cross the line with his hand until after the ball was released toward the court by A1.

Now what do you say?

No MARK we don't count metric in FIBA...And by the way there is no provision for a delay of game warning (like NF or NCAA) for knocking the ball away on an inbound. It shoudl be an automatic T... But I think most would make it a no call if the ball was a lready realeased and got in the right hands. But what if it didn't get into the right hands? I would think that just it being released would cancel any possbility about it being a "t" but I will check the rule book and get back to yall

BTW do NF and NCAA ref all have a lousy sence of humour like Mark and do you all wear black and white stripes becasue they all full of hot dogs

LOLOLOLOLOL

Just joking hitting me back

According to rule his hand is legally allowed to be thru the inbounds line. if his hand is legally there then the touching is also legal
good defensive play....no call

------------------

The real confusion for this play comes with
2 rules and the penalty 7-6 art 3 and 9-2 art 11 clearly state that a player may cross
over the OOB line after release of the throw in pass, but in the penalty section of 9-2
#3 if an opponent reaches thru the boundry line plane and touches or dislodges the ball
a tech will be charged to the offender. No warning is reqired. But after the release is there still a boundry line plane. I'm one of those who think that after the release there is no more plane and since the T is assessed to the player instead of the team(as with other boundry line warning or infractions) I think that this penalty is used for the touching or dislogding of the ball while in control of the inbounder......You are right though a casebook reference or editorial change would help clarify this situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PAULK1:
But after the release is there still a boundry line plane. I'm one of those who think that after the release there is no more plane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, in all the times I have heard this topic discussed, I don't believe anyone ever came up with the theory that once the ball is released toward the court, that there is no longer a boundry line plane. That's a brilliant theory. If we agree, then it's true that once the ball is released toward the court, all restrictions on the defender end.

But - is it true? I think you could make a case that once the ball is released toward the court, the line's purpose to define the OOB area if it is stepped on or if the inbound pass (bounce pass) hits the line, is still valid, but that a "boundary" no longer exists for the purposes of breaking a plane.

Here's more thoughts to ponder on this topic: what if B1, who still has his hands over the line OOB, catches the inbound pass while the ball is still OOB? Is it in play? If so, why can't a member of A do the same without it being a violation?

Thought #2: if you consider the ball to still be OOB after the release but before it crosses the line, and B1 hits it, and you don't consider this a violation, what is the call if the ball then comes back and hits A1 who is still OOB? You can't say B1 caused the ball to go OOB since by your reasoning (if you are one of those who think the ball is still OOB at this point) never was inbounds. Or do you reason that the ball became inbounds when touched by B1 since he was standing inbounds. Circuitously, if that's the case, then there should be no argument that there is no violation, since the ball gained inbound status when touched by B1.

Is that confusing enough, or should I explain it in metric for you FIBA fans http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

See we FIBA refs don't have to go through all that. Ball out of bounds can't be touched by a defender. The only thing we have to decide is if we are going to call it or ignore it. See we are concerned about calling the game and not analzing the intricies of the rules. Or they might have us thinking about less becasue we do so much more running in 2-man than you fat lazy 3-man rotators

I don't have anything to back this up, but if I encountered the same situation tomorrow I would treat it the same as any other boundary line infraction; 1st offense a warning 2nd time a T.

We all make up the rules as we go along anyway.LOL

SIP -

Jack in NY. 2 man is done here....not all states in USA do 3 man. Also....you have MUCH too much leeway in calling the game. what do you mean you have to decide whether to call or ignore? Where is the fairness there? Hope I never have to play a game over there!

Also it seems to me that Paulk1 has given us the rule relating to this issue... after ball is released you can reach over plane...good D. We should not be interpreting squat. I agree 100% with Paulk.

Okay, I'm just a first-year still until November when I join the second-year class. So everything I say needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

In our first-year class, under the topic of management, we were told that there are times when you "don't see" something, or choose which event happened first and was whistled. In this case, if B1 hits the ball and it goes (or actually stays) OOB, it's just a chance to do the whole thing over. Before handing the ball to A1, remind B1 with a significant look not to reach through the plane.

If B1 touches and the ball goes in-bounds to A2 or A3, ignore the whole thing, explaining to the coach if necessary with some fancy interpretation. If B1 touches and the ball goes to B2 or B3, whistle it dead and explain that B1 reached over (late whistle) and do it all again.

Our first year teacher told us to always choose the easiest, least troublesome way to get the approriate ending. The only exception to the above would be if you were hoping to get rid of B1 because he was on the verge of exploding all over the court. Then a technical T (perhaps his 2nd?) would be a cheap way to avoid disaster. But then how often does this happen?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jackgil:
SIP -

Jack in NY. 2 man is done here....not all states in USA do 3 man. Also....you have MUCH too much leeway in calling the game. what do you mean you have to decide whether to call or ignore? Where is the fairness there? Hope I never have to play a game over there!

Also it seems to me that Paulk1 has given us the rule relating to this issue... after ball is released you can reach over plane...good D. We should not be interpreting squat. I agree 100% with Paulk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DO you agree 100% with Paulk that it is also a technical foul, as quoted in the other rule he referenced?

My point is that it can't be both, yet the NF rules tell us it's exactly that.

I certainly don't agree with the newbie above that says that if the ball stays OOB after touching that you just have a "do-over". I hate to stick on this point, but my analytical (some coaches say anal) mind just won't accept a dichotomy in the rules.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
... I hate to stick on this point, but my analytical (some coaches say anal) mind just won't accept a dichotomy in the rules.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with getting the rules clarified, but I guess it is too late for this year.

As for how I call the game, once the ball is released I allow anyone to reach over the line -- same interpretation for A and B. Once it is touched by a player who is inbounds, the ball is inbounds and I start the clock. From that point, everything seems natural.

I've never seen the situation where a coach will balk at this. It would seem that the only scenario would be on a long inbound pass that stays OOB for most of the flight. That's unusual, and the steal would look natural anyway.

My $0.02. :-)