Followup question to another post

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by CLAY
I am calling a JV boys basketball game. Score is tied with less than 40 sec's left. A1 has the ball and is getting no pressure bringing up the ball in the back court. A1 who has stopped next to the coach for instruction, but contuines his dribble, A1 is patted on the rear by the coach who is standing out of bounds. I call out of bounds on A1. Was this the correct call.

Nope,you should have T'd the coach for entering the court without permission(R10-4-2)!

Clay,ask yourself this: Did the coach gain any advantage by patting his player on the butt? Was the other team placed at any kind of disadvantage by the coach's act? Could you call the coach's action an unsportsmanlike act? Was the coach seat-belted or flagrantly out of his coach's box when he gave his player the pat? I think that you might have a hard time answering "yes" to any of those questions! If you can't answer "yes",why make a call on something that had absolutely no affect on the game?

This is what we were talking about before about the "spirit and intent" of a rule. You might be able to stretch the language to fit a situation, but is that really what the rulesmakers intended when they wrote the rule? In this case, IMO the most that you might do is maybe mention to the coach,when you get a chance,that it might be a good idea not to touch anyone on the court. You might even take the time and explain why. As for actually calling anything-OOB,T,etc.- I really don't think that a call should be made.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Because you only need to be over the designated spot not on it, I think this interp is wrong. You can make a legal throw-in without having physical contact with the spot.

But the throw will not be touched by the receiving player. So, you could never start the clock.

The game would last forever!

[Back In The Saddle]

There is a principle called The Law of Least Astonishment that helps me in cases like these described in this thread. When faced with a decision about something outside the norm, do the thing that will least astonish the participants.

IMO, if you make the OOB call in this unusual situation, you will have disrupted the natural flow of the game by making a call that nobody expected that penalizes a player/team who did not violate any obvious rule. That's pretty astonishing!

Even if you can back it up by the book, even if you can sell it, did the call make the game better? Did it penalize an illegally gained advantage? Or did it merely draw attention to the official, and his knowledge of the rules?

[AK ref SE]

I have to go back to college to officiate basketball this year. I have not taken a physics, molecular science or was it atomic science in many years, so my question is: can I officiate if I am IN school during the season, or do I have to be total OUT?

AK ref SE

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by AK ref SE
I have to go back to college to officiate basketball this year. I have not taken a physics, molecular science or was it atomic science in many years, so my question is: can I officiate if I am IN school during the season, or do I have to be total OUT?

AK ref SE

College? That's a pretty stiff requirement. Down here we just have to take the test

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by CLAY
I am calling a JV boys basketball game. Score is tied with less than 40 sec's left. A1 has the ball and is getting no pressure bringing up the ball in the back court. A1 who has stopped next to the coach for instruction, but contuines his dribble, A1 is patted on the rear by the coach who is standing out of bounds. I call out of bounds on A1. Was this the correct call.

Uh, Clay, I know you are trying to make a point in a rather silly way, but you are a day late and a dollar short on this one. Look at my earlier post from the first page of this thread where Tony and I already dealt with this issue.

Originally posted by BktBallRef
If a coach stuck his hand out and touched a player who was otherwise obviously inbounds, would you call him OOB?

Originally posted by Nevadaref
For the coach senario, if the player touches the coach it is OOB, if the coach touches the player and is not trying to catch him or stop him from being hurt, I think it has to be a technical foul.

Now while it was understood from our conversation that the player and coach were on opposite teams, it doesn't make any difference as far the rule is concerned. The rule says, "A player is out of bounds when he/she touches...", not a player is touched by, so it is certainly not OOB. Only penalize the player for their actions, not someone else's which he/she cannot control. If you wanted to be a real harda$$, it would be a T on the coach, but I agree with JR here, and I would not call it on people on the same team. Opposing member, however, I call a T, and a fan I eject.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

[/b]

If you wanted to be a real harda$$, it would be a T on the coach, but I agree with JR here, and I would not call it on people on the same team. Opposing member, however, I call a T, and a fan I eject.
[/B][/QUOTE]How can you justify not calling the rule uniformly? How could you possibly call the rule,as written,against one team-and ignore it against another team? All of your posts in this thread so far seem to point out that you think it is mandatory to call something according to the strict language of a written rule,and now you are recommending that we selectively apply a certain rule only. Why???

Btw,here are your exact quotes from previous responses in this thread:

"If we are not diligent and make an error which puts us in such a situation, we must then follow what is written in the rules,after all that is why they are there.Some say the rules aren't fair,so change them. But is it any more fair not to follow them?"

"Unfortunately,common sense does not always win out.In my opinion, this is one of those goofy situations,which if you are silly enough to get yourself into,you have to follow the rulebook to the letter to get out."

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 6th, 2003 at 05:51 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
How can you justify not calling the rule uniformly? How could you possibly call the rule,as written,against one team-and ignore it against another team? All of your posts in this thread so far seem to point out that you think it is mandatory to call something according to the strict language of a written rule,and now you are recommending that we selectively apply a certain rule only. Why???

JR, this discussion has been a bit confusing as we have been jumping back and forth between different senarios. There are two distinctly different plays at issue:
1. A player steps on or touches an object which is ON the boundary line.
2. A player is touched by a coach. (His or the opposing coach.)

In play #1 we have a clear rule (7-1-1)with very specific language to cover the situation. In this case I do believe that we should follow it to the letter and the quotes of mine which you provided apply to this situation.
In play #2 we are admittedly stretching a rule to cover the situation. (10-4-2 or 10-4-1 it is unclear to me which rule would best apply.) Since we are doing this, the language given under whichever rule we select will not be as clear and specific to the situation, therefore, I believe that more flexibility in its application and interpretation is called for.
To be as clear as possible, I do not believe that a coach touching a player necessarily means that he has entered the court. However, if it is distracting, unnerving, or disadvantageous to such a player, I think that the coach's action should be construed as unsporting. Obviously this interpretation would only make sense if the player and coach were on opposing teams.
However, if there is a clarification or NFHS casebook ruling that a coach who touches a player on the court during the game is considered to have entered the court, then I'd have to say that it applies the same to members of the same team just the same as it would to opponents.
Hope that clarifies my views for you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

In play #1 we have a clear rule (7-1-1)with very specific language to cover the situation. In this case I do believe that we should follow it to the letter and the quotes of mine which you provided apply to this situation.
In play #2 we are admittedly stretching a rule to cover the situation. (10-4-2 or 10-4-1 it is unclear to me which rule would best apply.) Since we are doing this, the language given under whichever rule we select will not be as clear and specific to the situation, therefore, I believe that more flexibility in its application and interpretation is called for.
To be as clear as possible, I do not believe that a coach touching a player necessarily means that he has entered the court. However, if it is distracting, unnerving, or disadvantageous to such a player, I think that the coach's action should be construed as unsporting. Obviously this interpretation would only make sense if the player and coach were on opposing teams.

[/B][/QUOTE]OK,I think that I got it now.

If the B coach is standing by the sideline with his shoe half on/half off the court, and an A player who is dribbling the ball steps on the part of the B coach's shoe that is on the court,then you must-by the very specific language of R7-1-1-call A1 for being OOB and give team B the ball for a throw-in.

Howver,in almost the scenario above,if the B coach's foot was in the air instead of on the ground,and the A dribbler then contacted the part of the foot that was in-bounds, it would be a technical foul on the B coach instead of a violation-as per R10-4-1or2.

Correct,as per your reasoning above?

[Nevadaref]

Yes, JR, those are the calls that I would make.