NCAA OOB Case Play?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Scrapper1]

Here's the official word from Mr. Hyland:

Sorry for the late response, but your rules question presented several interesting issues, and I needed to research the issues to assure myself that there had not been any prior interpretations given by Ed Billick.

You have identified many of the rules which relate to your play situation, but none of them, individually or collectively, provides a definitive answer to your question. Accordingly, the following play situation and interpretation should clarify the issues in question and will be presented to the rules committee this May for final approval before being published in the Case Book:

Play Situation:
With 2 seconds remaining in the game and Team A behind by 2 points, Team A has the ball for a throw-in on the endline after Team B has scored. A-1, the thrower-in, passes the ball down court where it is first touched by B-1 who is standing with one or more feet out of bounds.

Ruling- Since the ball has never been touched by a player inbounds nor met any of the other conditions of Rule 4-70.4, the throw-in has never ended. Team B’s out of bounds violation results in a new throw-in by Team A from the original designated spot ( the endline ). No time shall come off the game or shot clock. Rule 4-70.4, 7-5.2 and 7-2.2

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Art Hyland
Sec. Ed., NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committee

[Adam]

Good grief.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's the official word from Mr. Hyland:

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's the official word from Mr. Hyland:

Thanks Scrappy.

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

Art. 4. 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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's the official word from Mr. Hyland:

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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?

[wfd21]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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."

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Here's the official word from Mr. Hyland

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

NCAA OOB Case Play?

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.