FED Reaching Through the Plane

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I don't see it as that big of a deal. They've simplified the rule. We don't have to concern ourselves with whether the thrower's arms were extended beyond the plane or on which side of the plane the contact occurred. Basically, it's almost impossible to be 100% accurate on such a play.

Further, the next time I have to call a foul on a defender for fouling the thrower will be the first time in my career.

Like I said, it aint that big of a deal.

I would have the same number as you if I had to call it.

But we're still left with the same decision if they touch the ball....one side is a T, the other is legal.

My biggest contention is they didn't simplify it at all...they just moved the point of confusion. If they were going to change it, they should have changed both situations such that touching the ball would also be illegal regardless of where the ball is.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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"?