Spence Originally posted by BktBallRef Originally posted by FrankHtown Ok...where does 9-2-12 fit in? "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins" I interpret that to mean if a teammate of the thrower goes out of bounds, it's a throw-in violation. Is that the correct interpretation? Are we to call a violation or a technical? That's correct. It's a violation for a seconf player to be OOB when his team's thrower is already OOB with the ball. Is this true only on a designated throw-in and not true after a made basket? I'm picturing the OOB play where A1 is taking it out against pressure, A2 runs out of bounds where A1 then passes it to him and A1 then goes inbounds to receive the pass. Is this only a violation if its on a designated throw-in?
Camron Rust Originally posted by Spence Originally posted by BktBallRef Originally posted by FrankHtown Ok...where does 9-2-12 fit in? "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins" I interpret that to mean if a teammate of the thrower goes out of bounds, it's a throw-in violation. Is that the correct interpretation? Are we to call a violation or a technical? That's correct. It's a violation for a seconf player to be OOB when his team's thrower is already OOB with the ball. Is this true only on a designated throw-in and not true after a made basket? I'm picturing the OOB play where A1 is taking it out against pressure, A2 runs out of bounds where A1 then passes it to him and A1 then goes inbounds to receive the pass. Is this only a violation if its on a designated throw-in? You are correct. The restriction is only applicable on a designated spot throwin.
FrankHtown OK, then...my question is...if we see a teammate of the thrower run out of bounds, for example, to get behind a screen, ...why aren't we calling a violation, and make giving the technical a moot point?
walter The only potential rule change that I've heard of (from a committee member)and apparently it is getting very serious consideration is expanding the high school coaching box to match the college coaching box (i.e. end line to 28 foot line). Other than that, nothing dramatic is being discussed.
Jurassic Referee Originally posted by FrankHtown OK, then...my question is...if we see a teammate of the thrower run out of bounds, for example, to get behind a screen, ...why aren't we calling a violation, and make giving the technical a moot point? Call the violation on a spot throw-in. Otherwise, for non throw-in situations, call the T if a player goes OOB and gains an unfair advantage.
Spence Originally posted by Camron Rust Originally posted by Spence Originally posted by BktBallRef Originally posted by FrankHtown Ok...where does 9-2-12 fit in? "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins" I interpret that to mean if a teammate of the thrower goes out of bounds, it's a throw-in violation. Is that the correct interpretation? Are we to call a violation or a technical? That's correct. It's a violation for a seconf player to be OOB when his team's thrower is already OOB with the ball. Is this true only on a designated throw-in and not true after a made basket? I'm picturing the OOB play where A1 is taking it out against pressure, A2 runs out of bounds where A1 then passes it to him and A1 then goes inbounds to receive the pass. Is this only a violation if its on a designated throw-in? You are correct. The restriction is only applicable on a designated spot throwin. Good to know.
Back In The Saddle Originally posted by walter The only potential rule change that I've heard of (from a committee member)and apparently it is getting very serious consideration is expanding the high school coaching box to match the college coaching box (i.e. end line to 28 foot line). Other than that, nothing dramatic is being discussed. Seems kind of pointless to me. I think I've seen a coach out of his box on the baseline end maybe once in the last couple of years. It's the other end that coaches seem to want expanded.
rainmaker Originally posted by Back In The Saddle Originally posted by walter The only potential rule change that I've heard of (from a committee member)and apparently it is getting very serious consideration is expanding the high school coaching box to match the college coaching box (i.e. end line to 28 foot line). Other than that, nothing dramatic is being discussed. Seems kind of pointless to me. I think I've seen a coach out of his box on the baseline end maybe once in the last couple of years. It's the other end that coaches seem to want expanded. You may be right over all, but the few times I've had a coach down near the baseline, it's been to rag on my partner or me. To not be able to remind him or her of the box will just increase the wear and tear.
Back In The Saddle Originally posted by rainmaker Originally posted by Back In The Saddle Originally posted by walter The only potential rule change that I've heard of (from a committee member)and apparently it is getting very serious consideration is expanding the high school coaching box to match the college coaching box (i.e. end line to 28 foot line). Other than that, nothing dramatic is being discussed. Seems kind of pointless to me. I think I've seen a coach out of his box on the baseline end maybe once in the last couple of years. It's the other end that coaches seem to want expanded. You may be right over all, but the few times I've had a coach down near the baseline, it's been to rag on my partner or me. To not be able to remind him or her of the box will just increase the wear and tear. That was my experience too. If they seriously want to look at improving the coaching box rule, require an electric fence around the existing box. 😀
refnrev Originally posted by Back In The Saddle Originally posted by rainmaker Originally posted by Back In The Saddle Originally posted by walter You may be right over all, but the few times I've had a coach down near the baseline, it's been to rag on my partner or me. To not be able to remind him or her of the box will just increase the wear and tear. That was my experience too. If they seriously want to look at improving the coaching box rule, require an electric fence around the existing box. 😀 ___________________________________________________________ How about a little of that razor aharp wire like they use in prisons?
johnny1784 Originally posted by Back In The Saddle I predict no gray shirts or shot clock. I hope they make the "playing oob" a violation instead of a technical foul. I hope they add some clarification to the term path and to closely guarded. My reply is old. I would think you are writing about Rule 10-3-3, a player technical is given when leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. You do not give a warning or a violation per the 2004-5 points of emphasis where all players must play within the confines of the playing court (Rules Book, pg.70, 3.a). But most of the replies on this original topic seem to be about Rule 4-41-6 which would be a violation only.
cloverdale i called this because it was just like the poe and the case book...was told that not many officals call this because the penalty is to severe...would like to see this as a violation
Back In The Saddle Originally posted by cloverdale i called this because it was just like the poe and the case book...was told that not many officals call this because the penalty is to severe...would like to see this as a violation Which was my original point. I know of only three officials in my area who made this call this year. The penalty is way too severe for the offense. It needs to be made a violation rather than a technical foul. Hopefully the rules committee has received much feedback on this. Of course, with so few officials calling it, the committee could be deceived into thinking that no news is good news.
26 Year Gap Electric fence? How about the invisible fence with the dog collar? Of course, it would have to be disabled during timeouts.
Back In The Saddle Originally posted by 26 Year Gap Electric fence? How about the invisible fence with the dog collar? Of course, it would have to be disabled during timeouts. And wouldn't it be a shame if one timeout somebody forgot to turn it off? 😮 😀
26 Year Gap Originally posted by Back In The Saddle Originally posted by 26 Year Gap Electric fence? How about the invisible fence with the dog collar? Of course, it would have to be disabled during timeouts. And wouldn't it be a shame if one timeout somebody forgot to turn it off? 😮 😀 Always include the timer & scorer in your pre-game routine. 😉