Nevadaref Ch1town wroteI'm sure it's been discussed before & I searched previous posts, but couldn't come up with anything current. jdmara wroteGreat question that covers all the possibilities Ch1town. I can't say I would have thought of someone catching it out of bounds as being different than nobody touching it at all. Anyone have the citation to support the catching OOB? Just curious -Josh One just has to know where to look. http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/200708_basketball_rules_interpr.aspx 2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)
Camron Rust jdmara wroteGreat question that covers all the possibilities Ch1town. I can't say I would have thought of someone catching it out of bounds as being different than nobody touching it at all. The reason it is different is that the throw going OOB untouched is a violation on the thrower and the non-throwing team will get the ball....always. However, being caught OOB can be done by either team...the violation is on the person catching it. If this were not the case and it was the "same" as going OOB untouched, the defense could make sure they were OOB when deflecting a throwin pass in order be awarded the ball.
Jurassic Referee Nevadaref wroteOne just has to know where to look. Yup, and if you look at R9-3-2&PENALTY, you have the correct ruling to use without needing that citation. Just saying......
Nevadaref Jurassic Referee wroteYup, and if you look at R9-3-2&PENALTY, you have the correct ruling to use without needing that citation. Just saying...... That's obviously true, JR, but please recall that most of us missed what was in the penalty section of the rules book during the years that the editors were screwing around with it. The interp makes the point very clear by providing an example.
Nevadaref Camron Rust wrote However, being caught OOB can be done by either team...the violation is on the person catching it. If this were not the case and it was the "same" as going OOB untouched, the defense could make sure they were OOB when deflecting a throwin pass in order be awarded the ball. Even during the couple of years in the recent past when the NFHS editors screwed up the penalty for this throw-in situation what you write was not true. The fact is that the ball was still awarded back to the throwing team, but with the difference that the location was at the spot of the original throw-in instead of the OOB touching. Of course, that has now been fixed.
Back In The Saddle Nevadaref wroteOne just has to know where to look. http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/200708_basketball_rules_interpr.aspx 2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2) Why is the arrow reversed in this situation? If a kick isn't a legal touch, and thus the arrow doesn't change, why is being OOB when the player touches the ball a LEGAL touch? That seems very inconsistent to me. 😕
Nevadaref Back In The Saddle wroteWhy is the arrow reversed in this situation? If a kick isn't a legal touch, and thus the arrow doesn't change, why is being OOB when the player touches the ball a LEGAL touch? That seems very inconsistent to me. :confused: We had this discussion last season and the rationale given was that the way in which the ball was contacted was legal since it was not kicked or punched with a closed fist. The violation is for where the player was located while making an otherwise legal touch. So it is not the actual contact with the ball that is the problem, it is WHERE the player was when doing so. In other words if this play would have been legal had it occurred in the FT semicircle, then the touching is legal and the AP arrow gets reversed.
Jurassic Referee Back In The Saddle wroteWhy is the arrow reversed in this situation? The arrow is reversed under NFHS rule 6-4-4 because the throw-in has ended as per NFHS rule 4-42-5. Rules rulez.
Back In The Saddle Jurassic Referee wroteThe arrow is reversed under NFHS rule 6-4-4 because the throw-in has ended as per NFHS rule 4-42-5. Rules rulez. Yeah, I realize 4-42-5 says this the end of the throw-in. It just seems inconsistent to me to do it one way for a kick and another way for an OOB.
ca_rumperee bob jenkins wrote1 & 3) Original spot 2 & 4) Where the ball was caught OOB From whence the throw-in was released?
bob jenkins ca_rumperee wroteFrom whence the throw-in was released? Incorrect. Oh, to be clear, the "ruling" is correct, but the grammar isn't. "Whence" means "from what place," so the extra "from" is redundant.
Adam bob jenkins wroteIncorrect. Oh, to be clear, the "ruling" is correct, but the grammar isn't. "Whence" means "from what place," so the extra "from" is redundant. Word.