NCAA OOB Case Play?
 

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?

I can't see a case play but I think you were right. 7-6-2 states that "the throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched."

My opinion is that it was touched by a player causing it to be out of bounds. It wasn't a throw-in violation but an out of bounds violation by A2.

Since the throw in never legally ended the ball would go back to the original designated spot to Team B.

Interesting though, in the Maryland-Clemson game B1 touched it not A1 :) regardless, the designated spot would remain as at the start of the play.

I couldn't find it in the case book, however I made some phone calls and that's what I came up with.

So what does this mean then? "the throw-in pass shall touch another player (inbounds or out of bounds)

Not that I agree with SoinZebra's interpretation but your wording is from the NFHS rule book, this is an NCAA question.

Oops, my bad.:o

No problem haha..

Here's the pertinent NCAA rule:

Rule 7, Section 6.
Throw-In

Art. 2. 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.

Rule 9, Section 5
Throw-In Provisions

Art. 1. The thrower-in shall not:
b. Fail to pass the ball directly into the playing court so that after it crosses the boundary line, it touches or is legally touched by an inbounds player or touched by a player, who is on the playing court, and causes the ball to be out of bounds.

Art. 2. No player other than the thrower-in shall:
b. Be out of bounds when he or she touches or is touched by the ball after it has crossed the vertical inside plane of the boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in (men) a CLASS B technical foul and (women) a player/substitute technical foul.

Can't be...and I'll tell you why....

Throwin restrictions are generally placed on the thrower and the thrower is who violates if they do not meet the requirements of the throwin. If the thrower violates, the defensive team would get the ball. What if the player who was OOB was the defensive team? Does that mean the thrower violated? No. Would you give them the ball? No. You'd give it back to team A. So, what is the violation? Touching the ball while OOB. Where was the violation? Where the ball was touched.

Look at Rule 7, Section 6, Art. 2....where it says the throwin ends when a player OOB touches the ball....sounds like it legally ends.

Next look at Rule 9, Section 5, Art 1 where it says...

"The thrower-in shall not: Fail to pass the ball directly into the playing court so that after it crosses the boundary line, it 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 "

It seems to me that the NCAA doesn't define playing court the same way as the NFHS. If they did, this rule wouldn't make any sense since it would be impossible for a player to touch the ball and cause it to be OOB if they were only inbounds.

So, if a player, who touches the ball causes the ball to be OOB, the throwin both ends and was legally executed by the thrower.

The violation is a basic OOB violation....spot of the violation.

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.

Down Memory Lane With NFHS Rules ...
 

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.

You're wrong, and Camron is right. This rule is administered the same in FED and NCAA -- it's an OOB violation, not a TI violation.

Cameron- My original thought was to agree with you, however a variation of this play happened on 2/7 at the end of the Maryland/Clemson game. With 1.7 seconds left A1 had a designated spot throw in on the endline in his backcourt. A1 makes a long pass and the first person to touch the ball was B1 who was in the air but left the playing court with one foot on a boundary line in Team A's frontcourt. The crew gave the ball back to A at the original designated spot with no time off the clock. I texted the national coordinator and he agreed with the crew's administration:

Ball was never legally inbounded. Same as opponent or teammate catching throw in OOB.

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.

This ruling is contradictory to A.R. 182:

After a goal by Team B, Team A has the ball for a throw-in from the end of the playing court at which the goal was made and attempts to pass the ball inbounds.

(1) B1 kicks the ball along the sideline; or

(2) B1 kicks the ball along the end line from where the throw-in was attempted.

RULING: (1) The kick is a floor violation and the ball shall be awarded to Team A at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.
(Rule 9-6 and 7-5-1)

(2) Kicking the ball is a floor violation. Consequently, Team A shall retain the privilege to the throw-in from anywhere along the end line.

In (1) and (2), the throw-in was not legally completed since the kick is not a legal touch. As a result, neither the game clock nor the shot clock shall be started because of the violation.

(Rule 7-6-2, 7-5-6.a.4 and 9-6)

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.

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Rip Van Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. ...
 

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

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, :D. So give Billy a cigar, :D.

MTD, 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.

BillyMac's Picture.
 

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

MTD, Sr.

I Really Didn't Expect To See It When I Got Home From Work ...
 

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

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.

Well Camron, your crediblity just went into the outhouse, :D.

MTD, Sr.

Nothing new this week.....two playoff games so far, 1 last on Saturday, one this Wednesday, both for teams who's coaches can't stand me.

The one on Saturday was so much so that the pregame chat with the coaches nearly started a new ice age when I shook one of the coach's hands....my last game with him had ended with him being so frustrated that he chased us into the locker room as we left the court (followed by a phone call from me to the assignor). However, by the end of this game, he was probably in love with me as his team pulled off a very unlikely upset.

Will have one on Wednesday where the coach can be difficult. Last game I had with him, I blew whistle for very obvious contact right after my partner had blown his whistle for a different foul. With more info from my partner, I found out the fouler had tripped and was off balance from the first foul (less than a second prior) and only stumbled into the player I was was covering. Now knowing how he got there, I decided it was not actually intentional nor was it excessive enough for intentional. My partner reported his original foul. I explained to the coaches that mine, by rule, was not a foul since it was after the ball was dead and the contact wasn't intentional. The coach who's player was "fouled" merely said "OK" and walked away. The coach who's player was spared a T decided to give me grief about it....I said to him "Are you really complaining about me NOT calling a T on your player?" and I walked away.

Alabama Creighton
 

This exact play just happened with 3.4 seconds left in the first half of the Alabama/Creighton game. Alabama had a throw in under Creighton's basket. The officials ruled that A2 for Alabama caught the thrown in while standing on the sideline. The officials discussed and gave the ball to Creighton at the endline underneath Creighton's basket (i.e. the spot of Alabama's throwin).


P.S. Replay shows that the Alabama player was not actually OOB when he first touched the throw-in, but that is a judgment call not relevant to this thread.

Posted I agree, realized old thread and can't delete my post? Hmmm

Because the software automatically recognizes brilliance and refuses to allow it to go away?