NCAA OOB Case Play?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I had a play tonight that I'm 100% certain I got right. But the coach who disagreed with me could not be convinced. So I'm hoping there's a case play that someone can share with me. Here's the play:

A1 makes a throw-in pass from the endline. A2 steps on the sideline boundary and catches the throw-in pass while standing out of bounds. I awarded Team B the ball at the spot where A2 caught the ball, with no time having elapsed off the game clock.

Coach was adamant that Team B's throw-in should be from the spot of A1's original throw-in. This is covered in 7-6-2 and 9-5-2b. But there's no case play that I can find. Anybody help me out?

During the '10-11 season my partners and I discussed this exact situation after a scrimmage and at the time I e-mailed Debbie Williamson. I'm not home right now so I can't find her exact response. I'll try to find it when I get home later this morning.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.