I had this sitch happen to me this year during a girls varsity playoff game. A1 was throwing the ball in near half-court and threw it pretty much straight down the sideline toward the corner. B2, about 10 feet towards the endline, reached over the sidline to bat the ball down. I issued a warning for delay for reaching across the boundary line. I've always felt the "T" was called when a defender touched or dislodged the ball while the player was still holding the ball OOB. My answer is B.

A strong answer, Schmidt . . .
 

Except for the theoretical limiting case, when the player pierces the plane at the exact instant the ball reaches the plane, and hard cases make bad law, the player has violated - no question; you just weren't fast enough with your whistle. But no matter. You don't have to whistle it before contact with the ball occurs (out of the inbounder's hands, of course).

Schmidt MJ,
Why isn't this a throw-in violation for "failure to pass the ball into the court"?
mick

Schmidt's situation is precisely why I think this should not be a penalty - C guys, in my book. I hope that's how NF would rule.

The way I read Schmidt's sitch is that the ball is going to end up on the court, but way down in the corner 30 feet from where the ball is released. Do we want B to have to toe that line until the ball crosses the plane after it is released? I think that is not what the rule envisions.

I think the rule allows B to intercept or deflect this throw if it is released toward the court. It is the only sensible way to give each team fair access to a ball that has been released by the inbounder.

If that were true, Coach, then the offensive team would be allowed to reach through the OOB plane to catch the ball; and they are not allowed to do so.

Reference?

7-6-1. Good point, Chuck. But fair treatment would then tend to indicate that this should be a violation if either team touches the ball on the throw-in side of the boundary plane after it is released on the throw in pass.

It doesn't really matter? Now that makes a lot of sense.

Ah, but there was never a ruling on that one previously. So, it was a crap shoot which way they would go. I guess we'll have to wait for an official interpretation to settle this one as well.

BTW, I remember you emailing me and agreeing with DeNucci the simultaneous personal fouls was indeed a false double foul situation. I remember how that one came out. :p

I think we're tied! ;)

As far as Peter Webb goes, it's not the first bet I've lost. But until I collect a lot of $5 bills that I'm due, I'm not paying up! :D

[Edited by BktBallRef on Apr 28th, 2003 at 06:03 PM]

It doesn't really matter? Now that makes a lot of sense.[/b][/quote]I didn't say it made sense. I'm just telling you the way it is :)

This is exactly the same sitch, I think. No specific ruling, lots of debate. . .and it turns out I'm right! (Ooooo, I'm getting a little cocky now!)

I have no recollection of that, Senator.

Yeah, I bet!! :D

Ok, all good-natured funnin' aside, I really don't remember siding with Mark on that debate. I've searched as many threads with "simultaneous" as I could find and I don't see any posts by me saying that they should be treated as FDFs. There are a couple links to a similar discussion over at McGriff's, but the links have been removed.

The thing I do remember about that debate is that I got hung up on the wording of the rule, regarding the second foul which occurs before the clock starts again. I thought Mark was claiming something that he really wasn't talking about.

Anyway, the real point of this discussion is that the answer to the original post is A. :)

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
 

I cannot even believe you are debating this. The rule states clearly that all restrictions end when the ball is released. Not when the ball crosses the line, when it is release (I references this earlier). You have not shown a reference in the rules and you have not shown us a reference in the Casebook. This is nothing. You cannot call anything, and if you did you are going to be so picky to tell everyone that the ball was touched without crossing the line? <b>Call the obvious!!</b> http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...pshakehead.gif

Peace

Re: Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
 

Jeff, you haven't given him any material, and he's GOT to argue with someone!! That PHD thesis is getting so knotty, he needs the distraction of something basketball-ish to think about. Why don't you do him a favor, and start another presence vs rules thread? Unless Brad deletes this post before you get a chance to read it...

Ya know Juulie...............
 

I have not had a laugh so hard in weeks. That was hilarious!!! I fell out my seat in laughter.

BTW, Referee Magazine this month had an article called <b>"The Best Officiated Game is When You KNOW the Officials Are There."</b> Basically the article is all about "Presence" and talks about it's importance to officiating. Interesting there is no one here ripping that article (which I did not write BTW) and talking about how stupid Tom Schreck is for even bring up this issue. But then again, I do read other things than this board for information.

Peace

Re: Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
 

The rule that states the restriction ends is in the rule about a violation for reaching through the plane. Given the logic many are using, this rule could be used to end any restriction in the game.

Touching the ball on the OOB side of the line is a separate and distinct rule (in rule 10) that even in the normal case explicity overrides the plane violation. In the typical case where the ball in the thrower hands, the plane violation rule is superceeded by the technical foul rule. Why would this explicit priority not continue to hold true after the release.

The reason that breaking the plan is permitted after the release is that any possible infraction will not matter since the thrower has released the ball.

However, neither team can touch the throw-in until it crosses the line. For the offense, it is a violation and the penalty is the loss of possession. If it were a violation for the defense, there could be no penalty. You can't have a violation of the rules with no penalty. If the penalty were to give the ball back to the offense, there would be no incentive to not do it. They'll either be in the same situation if it is called, or will perhaps get the ball if the ref doesn't call it. The only possilble way to penalize the defense for a non-contact infraction is through a technical foul. That is why delay-of-game infractions turn to T's on the second infraction.

Taking the long sideline pass case as mentioned above is the perfect example that demonstrates a likely case where this may occur. We all agree that the offense is not allowed to touch the ball on the OOB side of the plane. In this case, if the defense were allowed to touch it, they would be given a priviledge that is not consistent with other rules.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Apr 29th, 2003 at 12:18 PM]