NCAA OOB Case Play?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Actually A.R. 182 states a floor-violation by an opponent does not cause the throw-in to end but ensuing throw-in is from a spot nearest to the violation.

Rule 9-15 addresses where throw-ins will occur when penalizing violations 9-3 through 9-14:

Art. 1. The ball shall become dead or remain dead when a violation occurs. The ball shall be awarded to a nearby opponent for a throw-in at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.

The play from the OP falls under 9-4-1 and 9-5-2b so should be administered as stated in 9-15-1 and A. R. 182.

Good additional detail.....thx for the backup....but 7-6-2 does clearly say the throwin ends when it touches an OOB player. Other types of floor violations (kicking, for example) do not cause the throwin to end...only OOB violations. The difference is that a kick is not a legal touch in any location where catching the ball is legal, but the location happens to be illegal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Good additional detail.....thx for the backup....but 7-6-2 does clearly say the throwin ends when it touches an OOB player. Other types of floor violations (kicking, for example) do not cause the throwin to end...only OOB violations. The difference is that a kick is not a legal touch in any location where catching the ball is legal, but the location happens to be illegal.

OK, I see what you are saying now and agree.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

JetMetFan, if you could come up with that ruling from Debbie, I'd really appreciate it. I don't think I want to bug Art Hyland with this one.

Drum roll please...I had to e-mail Debbie Williamson again since I couldn't find the original message but...

She said the ball will be put into play at the spot where A2 caught the ball with no time running off the clock.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Drum roll please...I had to e-mail Debbie Williamson again since I couldn't find the original message but...

She said the ball will be put into play at the spot where A2 caught the ball with no time running off the clock.

Any chance you could PM a copy of the actual email? Thanks!

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Any chance you could PM a copy of the actual email? Thanks!

Hey Scrapper -

It wouldn't be the most exciting e-mail. I didn't ask her for the rule citations. I just gave her the scenario you laid out and told her I remembered her saying the ball goes to the spot where A2 violated and that the clock wouldn't run. All she did was confirm my memory was correct

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Hey Scrapper -

It wouldn't be the most exciting e-mail. I didn't ask her for the rule citations. I just gave her the scenario you laid out and told her I remembered her saying the ball goes to the spot where A2 violated and that the clock wouldn't run. All she did was confirm my memory was correct

Great discussion. I'm curious what that rational would be for not taking at least 0.3 seconds off the clock. If the ball was legally touched, although he was OB, shouldn't some time come off?

[APG]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Great discussion. I'm curious what that rational would be for not taking at least 0.3 seconds off the clock. If the ball was legally touched, although he was OB, shouldn't some time come off?

I don't believe NCAA has a .3 rule (as far as timing goes) like the NBA does...but even so, the ball was legally touched, yet the violation occurred simultaneously. I'd agree with taking no time off the clock.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

About twenty-five years ago, the NFHS ruled this a throwin violation. Then it was changed to an out of bounds violation. I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm, or deny, my interpretation. Right now he's probably taking his early morning nap.

I am joining this thread late, but Billy is correct about the NFHS "back and forth" change that was made.

That said, if we ignore the few years when the NFHS rules said it was a throw-in violation the NFHS and NCAA rules have been identical for since at least the 1963-64 (my earliest NBCUSC Rules Book).

I am not going to climb up into the attic but I am pretty sure that there is at least one Casebook Play in an NBCUSC Casebook that covers this play and I am also pretty sure that there is a NFHS Casebook Play that covers this play and they are both the same: OOB violation by A2.

NCAA A.R. #182 does not apply to this play because the violation is a kicking violation which is considered illegal contact with the ball. The act of catching the ball while standing out of bounds is not illegal. Since there has never been an NCAA A.R. that covers the play in the OP, the NBCUSC Casebook Play is the applicable Casebook Play for the NCAA Rules because when the NBCUSC split into the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees, it was agreed that NBCUSC Casebook Plays would continue to apply until a rule was adopted that would change the ruling of the existing Casebook Play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...NCAA A.R. #182 does not apply to this play because the violation is a kicking violation which is considered illegal contact with the ball. The act of catching the ball while standing out of bounds is not illegal. Since there has never been an NCAA A.R. that covers the play in the OP, the NBCUSC Casebook Play is the applicable Casebook Play for the NCAA Rules because when the NBCUSC split into the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees, it was agreed that NBCUSC Casebook Plays would continue to apply until a rule was adopted that would change the ruling of the existing Casebook Play.

A. R. 182 may not apply but 9-15-1 addresses it sufficiently. Throw-in at a spot nearest the violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Great discussion. I'm curious what that rational would be for not taking at least 0.3 seconds off the clock. If the ball was legally touched, although he was OB, shouldn't some time come off?

Why would it? The event that would start the clock was the same event that would stop the clock. Time might come off if one official signaled the start and another signaled the stop, but that doesn't mean time has to come off....particularly when no time elapsed between the starting and stopping events.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm, or deny, my interpretation. Right now he's probably taking his early morning nap.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am joining this thread late, but Billy is correct about the NFHS "back and forth" change that was made.

And I'd bet my house that I was correct about the nap also.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Rip Van Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm, or deny, my interpretation. Right now he's probably taking his early morning nap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am joining this thread late, but Billy is correct about the NFHS "back and forth" change that was made.

And I'd bet my house that I was correct about the nap also.


Billy made his post above at 07:48amEST on Wed., Feb. 08, 2012, I had just finished a 60 minute nap at the Eastbound Service Plaza at MM-90 on the Indiana Toll Road (I-80/I-90), on the homeward bound leg of my bi-weekly courier run with Chicago Public Schools payroll. So yes, I had just taken my early morning nap, . So give Billy a cigar, .

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

A. R. 182 may not apply but 9-15-1 addresses it sufficiently. Throw-in at a spot nearest the violation.

BadNewsRef:

You are missing the point of my post: That is, with the exception of a couple of years in the 1990's (when the NFHS considered the violation being discussed a throw-in violation), the NFHS and NCAA rule for this play has been the same for over 50 years pre-dating the NBCUSC split into the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees.

While I do not recall an NCAA Casebook Play (When the split was made the NCAA did publish a Casebook and then went to Approved Rulings within the Rules Book.) or Approved Ruling pertaining to the play we are discussing, I am pretty sure that a NFHS Casebook Play has been published at one time or another.

I am also pretty sure that a NBCUSC Casebook Play that has been published pertaining to this play and that in the absence of an NCAA Casebook Play or Approved Ruling the NBCUSC is NCAA Ruling for this play (See my Post #23 as to why the NBCUSC Casebook applies to theNCAA Rules.).

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

What happened to BillyMac's picture of JurrasicRef and me?

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

On the homeward bound leg of my bi-weekly courier run with Chicago Public Schools payroll.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What happened to BillyMac's picture of JurrasicRef and me?

Inappropriate. Off topic. Not funny. Not funny enough. Waste of band width. Offensive to Jurassic Referee. Nothing to do with basketball. Nothing to do with basketball officiating. Unconstitutional. Illegal. Immoral. Waste of time. Earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3335/...7c8c4002_z.jpg