Actually, it was in the mid 2000s, somewhere between 2005 and 2008 is my recollection without looking it up.

Nevada:

I am going to defer to your time period because I didn't feel like climbing up into the attic. LOL But I guess I am getting senile because I thought it was farther back in the foggy corners of my mind. LOL

MTD, Sr.

Here's the official word from Mr. Hyland:

Good grief.

Interesting. It seems the Men's and Women's Rules Editors need to get together on this one given what Debbie Williamson told me a few weeks ago.

Thanks Scrappy.

I hope they address the bolded part of 4-70-4:

What exactly does that mean? I read it as 'touching' and 'causing the ball to be OOB' to be simultaneous acts and it contradicts the interpretation Mr. Hyland says the NCAA will put forth.

Scrapper:

Thanks for the update. The only problem with Mr. Hyland's interpretation is this: It is incorrect by rule. All he had to do is read NCAA R7-S4-S70-A4, which states (I have highlight in bold red the section of NCAA R4-S70-A4 that proves his intepretion incorrect):

"A throw-in shall end when a passed ball touches or is legally touched by
an inbounds player or when a player, who is located on the playing court, touches and causes the ball to be out of bounds or when the throw-in team commits a throw-in violation."

NCAA R4-S70-A4 is equivalent to NFHS R4-S42-A5b which states:

"The throw-in ends when the passed ball touches or is touched by another player out of bounds, except as in R7-S5-A7."

It really irratates me when people who should know better cannot read and comprehend a rule that has been in place for well over 45 years.

MTD, Sr.

Wow, deja vu'. Have you joined M&M's company? :)

This was posted on the NCAA Womens site on 2/21/12 by Deb Williamson:
Quote:


2/21/12 Throw-in violations (Rule 9-5.1.b)
The interpretation of 9-5.1.b has been that when a player is standing on a boundary line or straddling
a boundary line when she catches a passed ball from a thrower-in, that player has caused the ball to
be out of bounds and the subsequent throw-in would be on the sideline. The following graphic was
used in the 2007-2008 clinics to illustrate this interpretation:
Throw-in Ends
• When a player, who is located on
the playing court, touches and
causes the ball to be out of bounds,
This throw-in
has ended and
the new throw-in
spot will be on the
sideline
The clock does
not start
This interpretation has been in effect for many years and will remain in effect until the Rules
Committee reconsiders its position in May 2012. A recommendation will be made to alter this
interpretation, but in the meantime, officials are expected to continue using the current
interpretation as illustrated above. This interpretation is not be confused with a situation in which a
passed ball from a thrower-in doesn’t touch any player who has a foot on the playing court. In that
case, the throw-in spot will be the original throw-in spot.

The problem with what you've put in red is that the definition of "playing court" in Rule 4 is the inbounds part of the floor. So it doesn't apply to (and hence the throw-in doesn't legally end) a player who catches the throw-in pass while having out of bounds status.

BNR has, IMHO, correctly identified the part of the rule that needs cleaning up if it is to match this interp.

With that definition of the playing court, this part of the rule is nonsensical.

Mark, maybe the problem is the definition of "playing court" in the NCAA rule book (4-52):

The playing court is the area on the floor that lies within the geometrical lines formed by the inside edge of the boundary lines.

It might be nitpicking but Mr. Hyland may be defining the playing court as anything which is inbounds because of the "inside edge of the boundary lines" part. I'm guessing but it's the only thing I can think of.

On the flip side, NFHS doesn't have a Rule 4 definition of what the playing court is.

Charge Up The Flux Capacitor ...
 

Thanks Scrapper1. Mr. Hyland's interpretation is just like the old NFHS interpretation:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post821460

What's the present NFHS interpretation. I'm very confused.

BillyMac and Scrapper.
 

I will address Billy's question first: The "correct" interpretation is the NFHS interpretation even for games played using NCAA Men's/Women's Rules.


Scrapper:

I know what NCAA R4-S52 says. For years the NFHS and the NCAA wording was the same going back to the NBCUSC days. I do not know why the NCAA need to rewrite R4-S52, but rewrite when combined with all of the other applicable rules for the play being discussed, the result is still the same as it always as been historically and that the violation is not a throw-in violation. Mr. Hyland's interpretation shows his lack of historical knowledge of the rule. He is wrong. PERIOD!!

Art played for Butch van Breda Kolff at Princeton University with Bill Bradley. Art was the Captain of the 1962-63 team as a senior. He is the current Coordinator of Men's Basketball Officials for the Big East. More importantly, he is a lawyer, which means he should know how to research the history of the rule and look at how the rule has been applied and interpretated over the years and how that impacts its application now. It is my opinion that he did not do his job thoroughly. Interpretating sports rules is no different than examining a law and how it has been applied and interpretated in ther past and how that impacts it appplication now.

MTD, Sr.

I agree.