First to touch?

[letemplay]

That is how I would rule it, but have seen others say both feet needed to be clearly down before touching.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

That is how I would rule it, but have seen others say both feet needed to be clearly down before touching.

Go by the rule book, not by others making statements like "both feet needed to be clearly down before touching".

Do you really think that somewhere is rule 4-35 it makes reference to "clearly down"?

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Go by the rule book, not by others making statements like "both feet needed to be clearly down before touching".

Do you really think that somewhere is rule 4-35 it makes reference to "clearly down"?

Do you really think there are not at least SOME refs out there every night that do not know ALL the rules, or some that view/interpret differently? Hence a forum such as this

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Do you really think there are not at least SOME refs out there every night that do not know ALL the rules, or some that view/interpret differently? Hence a forum such as this

Oh there are....but once you are able to sit down and discuss or type about it, you should have already consulted the rule book.

Also, listen to the words they said, "clearly down before touching". Does that sound like something they got from the rule book or something that just got passed down to them or they just made up on their own?

Player location doesn't fall under in the category of some obscure rule. That's something anybody past their 1st year of officiating should know by the rule book, not by hearsay, IMO.

[letemplay]

I'm not saying "they" are right and I also said I don't judge this play that way, just wanted to hear what others had to say. I see you agree with me.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by letemplay

I'm not saying "they" are right and I also said I don't judge this play that way, just wanted to hear what others had to say. I see you agree with me.

Yes, I do.
Thank you for taking my words in the kindest possible way.

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Yes, I do.
Thank you for taking my words in the kindest possible way.

Ha I actually did not see your post before making my last...my response would have been similar...sometimes I either am not expressing myself accurately here or am misunderstood a bit..doesn't bother me as I generally don't get too worked up over much.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

I'm not saying "they" are right and I also said I don't judge this play that way, just wanted to hear what others had to say. I see you agree with me.

I think you're missing my point.

This is something that is black-n-white within the rule book. Yes, during a game or in the locker room, you might get some mis-information. But once you've left the game and now get a chance to think about the rule, you're FIRST MOVE should be to the rule book, not asking for more opinions.

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think you're missing my point.

This is something that is black-n-white within the rule book. Yes, during a game or in the locker room, you might get some mis-information. But once you've left the game and now get a chance to think about the rule, you're FIRST MOVE should be to the rule book, not asking for more opinions.

So this forum/message board is NOT for opinions? Funny, I think I've read a few.

[Freddy]

"Letemplay", please understand I don't mean to dis you with what I'm about to say, only use part of your post to make a point.

"That is how I would rule it, but have seen others say . . ."

This phraseology is the bane of officiating.

I hear this at a rules meeting and I outspokenly rebel vociferously without restraint in a near-out-of-control manner.

There. Vent over. I feel only slightly better.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by letemplay

That is how I would rule it, but have seen others say both feet needed to be clearly down before touching.

These others you see... ask them to return to officiating football, where their notions are correct.

[APG]

In the NBA, a player may NOT be the first to touch the ball after going out of bounds if they are dribbling the ball or if they save the ball by controlling (throwing) it. If the player saves the ball by batting it, they MAY be the first to touch the ball.

That may be source of confusion for some officials and definitely a case where fans will think we rule a play incorrectly (much like a backcourt call with a defensive deflection even with the offense being the last to touch and first to touch).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by APG

In the NBA, a player may NOT be the first to touch the ball after going out of bounds if they are dribbling the ball or if they save the ball by controlling (throwing) it. If the player saves the ball by batting it, they MAY be the first to touch the ball. That may be source of confusing for some.

Thanks APG. That may be the source of this NFHS "myth".

[jeremy341a]

Being my first year I tagged along with 3 veteren officials Friday night for a learning experience. Player A1 chases down a long pass as he was cherry picking. He saves the ball from going out of bounds. Runs back in bounds and scoops it up dishing it to his teamate for the layup. The crowd went crazy.