Start the clock....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There were a few case plays/interps issued when the AP arrow rule was altered so that a team retained the arrow if the opponent kicked the ball on the initial touch of the throw-in pass.

One of the plays dealt with a player catching/touching the throw-in pass while standing on a boundary line. It said the touching was legal and the arrow switched, but it was an OOB violation and the opponent's ball at that new location.

From the above play, one can deduce that the NFHS ruling is that touching the ball with the hands (not a closed fist) is a legal action in itself. There may be other restrictions such as OOB, jump ball parameters, BI/GT, etc. which cause the touch to be a violation, but that doesn't mean that the touch isn't proper.

It may be parsing in a legal or exercise in mental logic, but that's the rationale for why such a touch would be timed.

What do you mean the "touch would be timed"?

If the touch is a violation, the clock, if running, stops. If it isn't running, it doesn't start.

I seem to remember a spirited discussion with Jurassic Referee about this years ago.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What do you mean the "touch would be timed"?

If the touch is a violation, the clock, if running, stops. If it isn't running, it doesn't start.

I seem to remember a spirited discussion with Jurassic Referee about this years ago.

I disagree with your statement here.
The rules state that the clock starts on the touch and stops when the violation is whistled. For a kick the NFHS issued a specific statement to not start the clock.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree with your statement here.
The rules state that the clock starts on the touch and stops when the violation is whistled. For a kick the NFHS issued a specific statement to not start the clock.

5-8-1: .......the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official signals a violation.

This tells me that if it is not running there's nothing to do.

Are you saying that if the throw-in pass is caught by a player standing on the sideline you will chop the clock in and then signal the violation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

5-8-1: .......the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official signals a violation.

This tells me that if it is not running there's nothing to do.

Are you saying that if the throw-in pass is caught by a player standing on the sideline you will chop the clock in and then signal the violation?

The "you" here might be two different officials. The administering official may not be in any position to observed the OOB situation. Thus, time will be started by the administering official and will be stopped by the covering official.

If it is one official (me), I'm not going to start then stop the clock.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Are you saying that if the throw-in pass is caught by a player standing on the sideline you will chop the clock in and then signal the violation?

Yes.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes.

Any way you slice it, you are starting the clock at a time when it should be stopping. I see no way to justify this.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Are you saying that if the throw-in pass is caught by a player standing on the sideline you will chop the clock in and then signal the violation?

On this play I know the answer for NCAAW would be no.

A group of officials and I discussed this scenario after a scrimmage a few years ago. We were split so I e-mailed Debbie Williamson. I e-mailed her again in Feb. of 2012 since I'd forgotten the interpretation:

From me: Good afternoon Ms. Williamson -

I hate asking you about a situation I know you answered for me a few years ago but I can't find your previous response in my old e-mail, so...

Situation: A1 makes a throw-in pass from the end line. A2 catches the pass with one foot on one of the sidelines.

Question 1: Is the ensuing throw-in by Team B at the end line due to the throw-in provisions having been violated or is it at the spot where A2 caught the ball due to the out-of-bounds provisions having been violated?

Question 2: Does any time run off the clock?

If memory serves me correctly you told me previously that the ensuing throw-in will be at the spot where A2 caught the ball and no time will run off the clock. I just wanted to make sure since the question came up again.

From Debbie Williamson: You have remembered correctly. That is still the interpretation at this time

Nothing has come out in the past two years indicating the interpretation has changed.

I think we should use some common sense here. If the clock has not started and the first touch results in a violation, I don't think the clock should have run. It's kinda like that "legal touch" language that ends a throw-ins.

Unless it's the end of the game and getting the time correct is paramount, I will probably ignore trifling timing errors.

Regarding the other issue, if a player catches the ball with a foot on the sideline, is that really a legal touch? Wouldn't the ball come back to the original throw-in spot just like if the ball never touched anyone inbounds before going out?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Regarding the other issue, if a player catches the ball with a foot on the sideline, is that really a legal touch? Wouldn't the ball come back to the original throw-in spot just like if the ball never touched anyone inbounds before going out?

It's an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation, so the next spot is where the ball was touched.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation, so the next spot is where the ball was touched.

Taking a walk down Memory Lane, this used to be a throwin violation. If inbounder A1's throwin first touched B1, who was out of bounds, possession went to Team B at the spot of the original throwin. You heard right. Team B's possession.

This odd ruling was changed about thirty years ago. It might still confuse some more experienced (how's that for a euphemism) officials.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

On this play I know the answer for NCAAW would be no.

As posted above in this thread, the text of the NCAA rule is different from that of the NFHS. The NCAA specifies that the touch must be by an "inbounds player" while the NFHS does not have such a requirement.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As posted above in this thread, the text of the NCAA rule is different from that of the NFHS. The NCAA specifies that the touch must be by an "inbounds player" while the NFHS does not have such a requirement.

I'll go back to the "legally touched" part of the NFHS rule as to why the clock shouldn't start. If a player touches the ball while standing on a sideline or endline it's a violation, which is not a legal touch of the ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I'll go back to the "legally touched" part of the NFHS rule as to why the clock shouldn't start. If a player touches the ball while standing on a sideline or endline it's a violation, which is not a legal touch of the ball.

And on the most basic level that incorrect understanding is what I've consistently posted against in this entire thread. The touching of the ball itself is not illegal, such as a kick would be. Rather the player is breaking some other rule by where he is standing.