FED Reaching Through the Plane

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Not sure what the point of confusion is. I'm not confused. They simplified one rule and didn't simplify the other. Not the first time that's happened.

One is now simplified but the other remains more complex. For me, better to have one simple and one complex than have two complex rules.

And again, the next time I have a defender touch the ball on the court side will be the first time.

It is not my intent to put words in Camron's mouth but I think what he is saying is that the Rules Committee is not being consistent in their logic and reasoning. As I have stated in the past people at the NFHS and who sit on the Rules Committee, too often, just do not do their homework when proposing and passing changes to the rules. That is all I am going to say becasue it is too early in the morning to get riled up and the Rules Committee Chairman is an OhioHSAA Administrator.

MTD, Sr.

[DrPete]

Here's another wrinkle to consider:
I have been taught that the hand is considered part of the ball when the hand is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler or a shooter on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul, no matter how loud it sounds or how much it hurts.

I understand that if the ball is held out of bounds, then any contact with the ball would be player technical foul. Got it.

However, if the thrower has the ball on the inbounds side of the line, and there is contact on his hand like describe above, is it still an intentional foul??? If so, then that just reinforces Camron's reasoning why this is inconsistent.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DrPete

I have been taught that the hand is considered part of the ball when the hand is in contact with the ball.

That statement, while a good guideline, and potentially helpful, is not always correct, and not what the rule says.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It is not my intent to put words in Camron's mouth but I think what he is saying is that the Rules Committee is not being consistent in their logic and reasoning. As I have stated in the past people at the NFHS and who sit on the Rules Committee, too often, just do not do their homework when proposing and passing changes to the rules.

Did I know write, "They simplified one rule and didn't simplify the other. Not the first time that's happened"?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Here's another wrinkle to consider:
I have been taught that the hand is considered part of the ball when the hand is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler or a shooter on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul, no matter how loud it sounds or how much it hurts.

I understand that if the ball is held out of bounds, then any contact with the ball would be player technical foul. Got it.

However, if the thrower has the ball on the inbounds side of the line, and there is contact on his hand like describe above, is it still an intentional foul??? If so, then that just reinforces Camron's reasoning why this is inconsistent.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That statement, while a good guideline, and potentially helpful, is not always correct, and not what the rule says.

Rule 10-6 ART. 2

A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by DrPete

Here's another wrinkle to consider:
I have been taught that the hand is considered part of the ball when the hand is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler or a shooter on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul, no matter how loud it sounds or how much it hurts.

I understand that if the ball is held out of bounds, then any contact with the ball would be player technical foul. Got it.

However, if the thrower has the ball on the inbounds side of the line, and there is contact on his hand like describe above, is it still an intentional foul??? If so, then that just reinforces Camron's reasoning why this is inconsistent.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That statement, while a good guideline, and potentially helpful, is not always correct, and not what the rule says.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Rule 10-6 ART. 2

A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball.

4-24-2 It is legal use of the hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

[deecee]

I don't see what is so complicated about all this. They made it as clear as possible. There is no room for debate or personal preference. This is as black and white as an out of bounds call. Contact with the thrower in by an opponent is an IF. Contact with the ball OOB while in the hands of the thrower in is a T.

It's stated in black ink on white paper. Who cares what other rules say elsewhere? IF A happens penalize with option 1. IF B then use option 2, etc.

There is no mention for use of judgement as there would be in dead ball contact situations. The rule says TO NOT CONTACT THE THROWER IN. Where is the grey area?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't see what is so complicated about all this....

I agree with that.

My issue is they changed one part of the throwin restrictions and not the other. The rules are far easier if they consistent....they were before and now they're not.

They also called it an "editorial" change. It was not...it was a rule change in disguise.

[deecee]

Yeah, but I don't think into things that much I guess. Its not my place to make this avocation any more complicated than it need be. If the rules give such a black and white rule I just take it as face level.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Yeah, but I don't think into things that much I guess. Its not my place to make this avocation any more complicated than it need be. If the rules give such a black and white rule I just take it as face level.

A well written set of rules would apply the same principles to similar situations. That makes them simpler and makes the job of the officials simpler as a result. Indirectly, it generally make for a better game as everyone can understand the rules rather than having to memorize hundreds of variations of scenarios that can't be derived from basic concepts.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A well written set of rules would apply the same principles to similar situations. That makes them simpler and makes the job of the officials simpler as a result. Indirectly, it generally make for a better game as everyone can understand the rules rather than having to memorize hundreds of variations of scenarios that can't be derived from basic concepts.

Camron, in an ideal world I would agree with your statement. But when, in reality does it ever work so. Basketball is a complex game that involves a lot of moving parts that we, as officials, must oversee.

IF one rule says something and another one offers an exception to the first rules penalty or adjudication, then I am not going to stress over it. I'll let the rules committee deal with it. Arguing, back and forth, the validity of the exception and the confusion that the rules MIGHT cause only adds to confuse many officials.

In this case the rule is simple and black and white. I like that as IT SHOULD provide a more uniform application of how the FED wants it addressed. I also think it's a very simple variation that doesn't require a PhD to comprehend. Some officials will screw it up. Then again some officials screw up the most basic of rules time and time again.

So, in short, I agree with your statement that the rules should be simpler and not contradict one another. However, in cases where there is a lack of uniformity, and clear direction is given, debating the validity of the penalty doesn't serve much good, unless there is someone from the FED here who would listen and consider a revision.

Truth be told. How often does this come up? In my almost 10 years, maybe a handful of times. And even though the breaking of the plane rule is written as black and white I think there is grey as to how and when the DOG/warning should be penalized.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through
the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game,
Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had
already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1breaks the plane and subsequently
contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act
and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free
throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning
for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team
technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

Similar situation but instead of contact we have a breaking of the plane by defender after a warning was give to team for delay. Is this a TEAM TECHNICAL?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

Similar situation but instead of contact we have a breaking of the plane by defender after a warning was give to team for delay. Is this a TEAM TECHNICAL?

You don't penalize a player with a technical for a delay when the TEAM has received a warning. The only time you would assess a T to the player is if he reaches through the plane and touches the ball while the thrower still has it. In that case, it's a T on the defender and a warning is issued if there's not previously been a warning.

Rookie, I'm not trying to be ugly but all these questions you ask are in the Rule Book and Case Book. Do you not study these two books?

May I suggest you study and then ask questions about things you don't understand as opposed to asking about plays that are specifically covered in the Case Book? I think you would learn and retain it more efficiently. After all, we're not going to be on the floor when you need a question answered.

Just a thought.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You don't penalize a player with a technical for a delay when the TEAM has received a warning. The only time you would assess a T to the player is if he reaches through the plane and touches the ball while the thrower still has it. In that case, it's a T on the defender and a warning is issued if there's not previously been a warning.

Rookie, I'm not trying to be ugly but all these questions you ask are in the Rule Book and Case Book. Do you not study these two books?

May I suggest you study and then ask questions about things you don't understand as opposed to asking about plays that are specifically covered in the Case Book? I think you would learn and retain it more efficiently. After all, we're not going to be on the floor when you need a question answered.

Just a thought.

I am going thru a 200 question exam and I am doing a dumpster dive into the book and there are things that don't make sense to me or that I need clarification on...so I am leaning on the Vets for some guidance

[BktBallRef]

Okay. It just doesn't seem like the questions are about clarifying anything. It seems more like you're just asking us the questions, straight off the exam.