For a few years, many of us have been asking the NF to issue a case on the following play:

A1 to inbound. A1 releases the ball toward the court. After it is out of his hands, but before the ball crosses the OOB line it is touched by B1 who has broken the plane (after the release). There have been no prior delay warnings against team B. The correct ruling is:

A. technical foul on B1
B. delay of game warning on team B
C. no call

We have debated the point previously as to whether there is definitive language in the rule book to make this determination. The closest to a ruling I have ever heard is that Camron Rust said he asked Howard Mayo, who is the commissioner of the Portland Basketball Officials Association and a former member of the NF rules committee and that Howard said it is a technical foul on B1 (I think I'm quoting Camron correctly - I'm sure he'll correct me if I am not).

Please vote either A, B or C as to either how you have been instructed to call it or have come to your own conclusion. I'm really looking just for a consensus, not to start another discussion quoting rules or for a long liturgy of comments. Thanks.

C.

It can only be C.
 

Hummmmmm!
 

B


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

Re: Hummmmmm!
 

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

You need to read 9-2-11:

<b>"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."</b>

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

Peace

C.

The correct answer is none of the above. The play is legal under NFHS rules.

R7-S6-A3: 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 a throw-in pass. See R9-S2-A11 Penalty.

R9-S2-A11: 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 a throw-in pass.

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.

When Maine creates a player or players that the rest of the country would envy, I will then care what comes out of that state as it relates to basketball. Until then, there is nothing to call. It is not illegal or against the rules (if that makes you feel better) touch a ball that has been released on a throw-in, anywhere. Behind the line or beyond the line.

Peace

The play is legal. Don't blow the whistle.

Mr. DeNucci makes an important point, I believe,
 

because the 'legality' of reaching to the out-of-bounds side of the plane to deflect a throw-in pass is also an issue when the ball is being 'passed along the endline' after a made basket. In that circumstance, it is perhaps less intuitively obvious reaching through to deflect the ball is OK, but, as 7-6-3 shows, it is.

C.

Re: Mr. DeNucci makes an important point, I believe,
 

A "pass along the endline" is not a "throw-in" pass....so it would definitely be a technical foul to reach across and touch a pass between teammates that are OOB;
In answer to the poll, I used to understand this sitch to be a legal play. (I remember being told as much at an IAABO camp). But I *would* like to see an official NFHS case play interpretation.
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

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.

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
 

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?

Re: Re: Hummmmmm!
 

JR,

Thanks for the ruling!

Re: Re: Mr. DeNucci makes an important point, I believe,
 

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

Peace

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.

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

IAABO connection.
 

[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

Gee thanks Mark for opening an old wound! :D

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.

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.

Committee guys, are you listening?
 

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 . . .

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. . . ;)

Since this is a poll ...
 

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). :)

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.

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. :D

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]

Re: Re: Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
 

Juules, it all has to do with this inferiority complex Chuck has about being short. I mean you're a balding, middle-aged man and you seemed to have come to terms with it. Can you help Chuck out? :D

Cameron
You have convinced me. I have never seen this explained so well, or maybe I just never read all the arguments correctly. I now see this as an immediate T, no warning required.

It is a violation of the throw-in provision to touch the ball on the OOB side of the boundary plane in every rule that explicitly deals with this issue. The one thing that always got me was the defender being allowed to penetrate the plane after the throw. I now UNDERSTAND. This new freedom granted to the defender is not intended to allow the defender to touch the ball. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the defender cannot possibly affect the throw-in by reaching through the plane after the ball is released. The defender does affect the throw in by reaching through before release. Advantage/disadv concept says you should call nothing for a mere boundary plane violation after the ball is released, and you must warn and then T if it happens before release.

So what is the penalty [for touching the ball on the wrong side of the plane]? Again, the ball is not really "in play" until it crosses the boundary plane. If an offensive player touches the ball, the offense loses the ball. If the defense touches it, they are delaying the game, because they are intentionally touching the ball on a throw-in before it is legal to touch it. Granting another throw-in is not an adequate remedy in this case - A gains nothing from B's violation. T them up in my book.

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Apr 28th, 2003 at 09:55 PM]

Re: Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
 

Uh, which rule is that, exactly? If it were that obvious, we wouldn't have four pages on this topic -- again. Care to give me a rule citation?

Didn't think so. . .

Re: Re: Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
 

Camron, thanks for explaining it better than I could. Slowly, but surely, we are making converts. :)

Re: Re: Re: Chuck, Chuck, Chuck.
 

After mick comes to terms with his weird dreams about lack of authority, I'll have an empty slot. This time of year, the whole field of Whistle Psychology gets really crowded!