NCAA OOB Case 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.