Let's take a poll...... - Page 2

Woodee · #16 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 11:34am

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

Originally posted by Woodee

B
Why:
What coach teaches his/her players to jump OOB during a throw-in?

A question I cannot answer. Do not even know if that is the issue here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Woodee

I teach my players to jump straight up and down. The ball must have a chance to cross the OOB line during a throw-in, therefore delay of game warning.

You need to read 9-2-11:

"The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary plane until the ball has been released on the throw-in pass."

There is nothing that suggest that the ball must come across the line (in the air) as you suggest.

Peace

JR,

Thanks for the ruling!

JRutledge · #17 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mdray

The rules allow the opponent to reach thru the plane after the ball is released.(9-2-11) But they also say if the opponent reaches through & touches the ball, it is a tecnical foul (10-3-12). Rule 10-3-12 is silent regarding whether the ball has been released or not. So I now interpret this sitch to be a technical foul

This is why the Casebook is probably more important than the Rulebook sometimes. The Casebook covers specifically plays and how it should be ruled. 10.3.12 SITUATION A clearly states what is suppose to be done and the touching of the ball is in the hand to have a T called.

Peace

BktBallRef · #18 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mdray
Peter Webb is one of the finest people I have ever met and an absolute credit to the game of basketball. He was the president of IAABO last year.

mdray, that's fine, I wasn't disparaging Mr. Webb. But the IAABO doesn't mean diddley if you have no affiliation with them.

The point is, the comment DeNucci made had nothing to do with the question and he knows it. Padgett's choice of "no call" simply meant that the play was legal, not that it was illegal but shouldn't be called.

Quote:

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
I don't think it's that clear. I used to coach this, and won games with guys calling T's. What if it's a long pass, it hasn't crossed the plane yet, but the putative receiver hasn't established his/her self out-of-bounds at the time the ball is touched?

Jeff, if there's no player OOB, then the rule doesn't apply.

JRutledge · #19 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 01:22pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

mdray, that's fine, I wasn't disparaging Mr. Webb. But the IAABO doesn't mean diddley if you have no affiliation with them.

I could not agree more. All of us are not IAABO members not care anything about that organization. I am sure the people are good people, but it is like thinking that someone from the IHSA affects someone in Texas and what they do in officiating. It is interesting to hear different point of views, but IAABO members are not movers and shakers in my world of officiating.

Peace

RecRef · #20 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 03:58pm

Gee thanks Mark for opening an old wound!

I cannot understand why it is legal for the defense to reach across the line and touch a passed ball while it is a violation for the offense to do the same thing.

BktBallRef · #21 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 06:03pm

Quote:

Originally posted by RecRef
I cannot understand why it is legal for the defense to reach across the line and touch a passed ball while it is a violation for the offense to do the same thing.

There are plenty of things that the defense can legally do that the offense can't.

ChuckElias · #22 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 06:48pm

As I've said in other discussions of this topic, the answer is A. Although the prohibition against crossing the plane specifically ends when the ball is released, nowhere does the rulebook say that the prohibition against touching the ball ends when it is released. Technical foul.

JeffTheRef · #23 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 09:40pm

Does this thread not touch on a genuinely important, somewhat obscure point? I would love to see a Casebook play on the possibilities. From a _practical_ standpoint, just making the call that the ball has been touched after release but before passing through the plane is very difficult because the play is generally lightning fast and very close. It's a lot harder to be accurate about the plane than it is about stepping on a line, for example. My (high school) experience has been that, unless the defender clearly reaches through before the release, no call is made. It is the case of the pass along the end line that can be a game breaker. As I mentioned earlier, I used to routinely have my players use temptingly slow passes along the baseline, even at times roll the ball, to try to entice a defender into what I believed was a technical foul. Hey, sometimes you're desperate . . .

just another ref · #24 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 11:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
As I've said in other discussions of this topic, the answer is A. Although the prohibition against crossing the plane specifically ends when the ball is released, nowhere does the rulebook say that the prohibition against touching the ball ends when it is released. Technical foul.

As supported by 10-3-12: "A player shall not reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch or dislodge the ball...."

As Chuck says, this does not specify only before the release. I think this is a call that would be hard to make, (Ball in mid-air, which side of the plane was it on?)
but in a big gym with a lot of space out of bounds, it could
certainly happen, and when it did, the above rule seems undeniable to me.

BktBallRef · #25 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 11:35pm

What's the point in allowing the defender to break the plane after the release if he can't touch the ball?

It is my belief that 10-3-12 is not very clear and the intent of the rule is not to allow a defender to strike the ball while the thrower is holding it.

It would seem that this is also the interpretation of many others on this board as well.

just another ref · #26 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 27, 2003, 11:38pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
It is my belief that 10-3-12 is not very clear and the intent of the rule is not to allow a defender to strike the ball while the thrower is holding it.

I agree with you, but, as written, the rule supports the T call if one was made. I've never seen it happen.

ChuckElias · #27 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 28, 2003, 07:06am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
What's the point in allowing the defender to break the plane after the release if he can't touch the ball?

Doesn't really matter. The point is, he can't touch the ball. If I had to guess, the reason for allowing him to cross the plane is so that if his momentum carries him across the line after the release of the ball, the official is not required to interrupt the play to issue a warning.

Quote:

It would seem that this is also the interpretation of many others on this board as well.

It was also the concensus of many others that failing to step OOB before releasing the putative throw-in onto the court was either a delay of game warning or a do-over. As we all know now, that consensus proved to be incorrect.

You disagreed with me on that one too. . .

Ref in PA · #28 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 28, 2003, 10:21am

I vote C. I believe after a throw-in is released, the defense can touch the ball where ever it is. If there is another player oob, the ref has to judge if the release is a pass to the player oob or a release in-bounds. If between players oob, I would call a T. A ball passed between players oob is not a throw-in. I also can see various interpretations of this situation based on how the rules are worded. They are not explicit enough. My interpretations come from reading all applicable rules and deriving the intent, where not explicitly defined.

Some refs would call a T, based on one rule, but ingnoring references to similar actions as a violation. That is their choice, I just happen to read the interpretation differently (and, I think I am right).

Dan_ref · #29 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 28, 2003, 10:34am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
While some will argue that my answer is the same as C, I beg to disagree because I agree with Peter Webb the State Interpreter of Maine Principals Association (the HSAA for the State of Maine), as well as the IAABO State Interpreter for Maine, and a two-time member of the NFHS Rules Committee. Peter correctly defines a "no call" as: An infraction of the rules that an official has decided to ignore.

You're being ridiculous, Mark. There's no need for that.

We're not talking about rulebook terminology here. Everyone here, but you, realizes that C. means that an infraction of the rules has not occurred in this situation, the play is legal, and no call should be made.

BTW, I bet there isn't one other person on this board who knows, or cares, who Peter Webb is.

Well, just goes to show never say never...

I met Peter a number of years ago at a camp, he's a great guy, a great official and a great teacher.

Oops, forgot to say I agree with C, legal under NFHS.

ChuckElias · #30 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 28, 2003, 10:47am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
BTW, I bet there isn't one other person on this board who knows, or cares, who Peter Webb is.

Well, I do. He's that dopey professional bowler who wears his sunglasses while he's bowling. Isn't that who you mean? Oops, maybe you're talking about the guy who starred in the original "Dragnet" series. . .

By the way, Dan's wrong on this one too, so don't feel too bad, Tony.