Ask the Ref?

[opmisk]

Can't speak for all, but i think most are fully aware of the limitations of the pivot foot when coming to a stop, or receiving the a pass either while stationary or when moving.

My question is what are the limitations of traveling/running with the ball when moving towards the basket after you've picked up your dribble ? This scenario is not addressed in the article above. It's obviously different than receiving a pass while on the move because that rule states that the pivot foot is the first foot to touch the floor and can't be picked up and returned to the ground without passing or shooting. This would limit the player to two steps, the third step would be their pivot foot returning to the floor, and by definition a travel.

Again, the word "steps" may not be explicitly used in the rule, however describing the act of picking up a foot and returning it to the floor IS used. Last time i checked, this is analogous to taking a "step".

 

[AllSports12]

The limitations are no different than when a player is standing still. The only difference is with movement, you have distance covered. This often times creates a false image of what happened.

As we stated prior, locating the pivot foot is the key to being able to consistently rule on a traveling violation. In my opinion, it's the toughest thing we have to rule on.

 

[Yappi]

After a jump ball is called, Team A is given the ball for a throw-in from the baseline. Before releasing the ball, Team A's player steps over the baseline resulting in a violation. Team B is given the bound and legally inbounds the ball.

Should the possession arrow be turned toward Team B for the next jump ball or does the possession arrow still point toward Team A because they never legally inbounded the ball?

 

[111411]

After a jump ball is called, Team A is given the ball for a throw-in from the baseline. Before releasing the ball, Team A's player steps over the baseline resulting in a violation. Team B is given the bound and legally inbounds the ball.

Should the possession arrow be turned toward Team B for the next jump ball or does the possession arrow still point toward Team A because they never legally inbounded the ball?

As someone who kept the official book for 30 years, I was told that the possession arrow switches as soon as the player from Team A is given the ball.

 

[AllSports12]

As someone who kept the official book for 30 years, I was told that the possession arrow switches as soon as the player from Team A is given the ball.

We appreciate your work at the table.....Unfortunately, what you have been told only applies in rare cases.

Only in the case where the AP arrow has not been established, such as the start of the game or any extra period, the arrow is reversed as soon as it is placed at the disposal of the thrower. An example of this is A1 fouls B1 just after the ball leaves the official's hand on the jump ball. When the ball is placed at B's disposal for the throw-in, the arrow would be changed.

On situations where the arrow has already been established, the arrow is reversed immediately after the alternating possession throw-in ends. (Rule 6-4-4)

An AP throw-in ends the same way as any other throw-in..... when the ball is legally touched by a player in bounds, the passed ball touches or is touched by another player out of bounds, (except when that player is legally permitted to be out of bounds) or the throw-in team commits a violation. (Rule 4-42-5)

If either team fouls prior to the throw-in ending, the arrow is untouched. If the opponent of the throw-in team commits a violation prior to the throw-in ending, the arrow is suspended, as the new throw-in is for the violation and is not an AP throw-in.

 

[AllSports12]

After a jump ball is called, Team A is given the ball for a throw-in from the baseline. Before releasing the ball, Team A's player steps over the baseline resulting in a violation. Team B is given the bound and legally inbounds the ball.

Should the possession arrow be turned toward Team B for the next jump ball or does the possession arrow still point toward Team A because they never legally inbounded the ball?

The throw-in ended when A's thrower committed a violation, therefore Team B gets the ball for the violation and the arrow is immediately reversed.

 

[sean cook]

Help needed

What's the call.

High School game.

Player A shoots the ball and it hits the backboard after the ball hits the backboard player B pins the ball on the backboard. What's the call.

 

[AllSports12]

What's the call.

High School game.

Player A shoots the ball and it hits the backboard after the ball hits the backboard player B pins the ball on the backboard. What's the call.

As long as the ball was still on it's upward flight and was not in the imaginary basket cylinder when it was contacted, you have a legal play by the defense.

 

[sean cook]

So if the ball hits the backboard it's always considered in it's upward flight?


9.12 SITUATION C: B1 touches A1’s try for field goal: (a) just after its release
and while the ball is still in upward flight; or (b) while the ball is in downward
flight outside the cylinder and above ring level. RULING: In (a), the legal touching
does not end the try and the ball remains live. In (b), the defensive goaltending
causes the ball to become dead immediately and two points are awarded to
Team A. (4-22; 6-7-9)

 

[AllSports12]

So if the ball hits the backboard it's always considered in it's upward flight?

No.

It's the judgment of the official who determines whether or not the ball has reached it's apex.

 

[sean cook]

Ok this play happen in the Middletown vs Princeton game. The ref told me it would've been goaltending in the college but not high school. The ball was at it's apex. I'm a ref and I would've called it goaltending. I've asked several other refs and most all say goaltending. Thanks for the feedback....

 

[AllSports12]

Ok this play happen in the Middletown vs Princeton game. The ref told me it would've been goaltending in the college but not high school. The ball was at it's apex. I'm a ref and I would've called it goaltending. I've asked several other refs and most all say goaltending. Thanks for the feedback....

If they said it was goaltending because the ball was no longer on it's upward flight, that's a judgment call.

If they say it's goaltending because the ball has already hit the backboard, then they are wrong.

Under NCAA rules, if the entire ball is above the level of the rim after contacting the backboard, the ball is by rule on it's downward flight. Any touching of the ball outside the cylinder at that point would be a goaltending violation.

Federation Rules (High School) has no provision for the ball touching the backboard. That's why it's not mentioned in the Case Book play you quoted.

 

[Yappi]

Two situations with the defense incorrectly calling a TO:

1. Ball is inbounded. Defensive player hears someone yell TO, thinking it was his coach, he tries to call timeout. This causes confusion and leads to a turnover. Any call or play on?

2. Freethrow shooter is given the ball for FT shot. Coach wants a TO called and the player on the court yells for TO as the FT is attempted and missed. Any call?

 

[AllSports12]

Two situations with the defense incorrectly calling a TO:

1. Ball is inbounded. Defensive player hears someone yell TO, thinking it was his coach, he tries to call timeout. This causes confusion and leads to a turnover. Any call or play on?

2. Freethrow shooter is given the ball for FT shot. Coach wants a TO called and the player on the court yells for TO as the FT is attempted and missed. Any call?

1) Play on. A time out is requested by a head coach or a player. That request is either granted or ignored by the official. If an opponent reacts to the request, it's on them.

2) If in the judgment of the official the request disconcerted the thrower, then a violation has occurred and a replacement throw is awarded.

 

[grandpoobah]

it is my understanding that in the state of Ohio...away uniforms can no longer be a light bronze or whatever...that the away team must wear its darkest, greatest contrasting uniform as the away team...true or not? if it is true...what is the penalty for that?

 

[AllSports12]

it is my understanding that in the state of Ohio...away uniforms can no longer be a light bronze or whatever...that the away team must wear its darkest, greatest contrasting uniform as the away team...true or not? if it is true...what is the penalty for that?

Not entirely true.

The regulation states that torso color shall be white for the home team and a comntrasting dark color for the visiting team.

The regulation also recommends that the dark torso color for the visiting team be the darker color fo the school's color scheme or black.

Any issue with team colors is to be directed to the OHSAA sport administrator via a game report and they will deal with the issue and penalize as they see fit. Game officials have are not to penalize.

 

[grandpoobah]

Not entirely true.

The regulation states that torso color shall be white for the home team and a comntrasting dark color for the visiting team.

The regulation also recommends that the dark torso color for the visiting team be the darker color fo the school's color scheme or black.

Any issue with team colors is to be directed to the OHSAA sport administrator via a game report and they will deal with the issue and penalize as they see fit. Game officials have are not to penalize.

statements two and three of yours...seem to be a contradiction...personally, i don't really care....but the state has a million uniform rules and i see this one violated at times...unless of course it's not a rule...but a recommendation

 

[AllSports12]

statements two and three of yours...seem to be a contradiction...personally, i don't really care....but the state has a million uniform rules and i see this one violated at times...unless of course it's not a rule...but a recommendation

I bolded the word because that's directly out of the regulation.

Officials have been directed to file a game report when an issue arises such as this. Any sanctions or penalties are administered by the sport administrators.

 

[grandpoobah]

why do some tournament sites allow more than a 20 minute warm-up and not others? why is there a "no dunking" rule in warm-up when it's violated constantly...players hammer away until the officials come out..silly rule, i think?

 

[AllSports12]

why do some tournament sites allow more than a 20 minute warm-up and not others? why is there a "no dunking" rule in warm-up when it's violated constantly...players hammer away until the officials come out..silly rule, i think?

Typically, they don't let the players out until the officials arrive on the floor. If they allow them earlier, then that's on the tournament manager it's their job to let the officials know they are ready.

As far as dunking, the official's jurisdiction does not begin until the enter the floor. The cannot penalize without being there. Dunking is not permitted for two reasons.....

1) We don't want the pregame to turn into a "one-up" contest.
2) When that happens, the dunk attempts get out of hand and backboards are at risk.

 

[grandpoobah]

Typically, they don't let the players out until the officials arrive on the floor. If they allow them earlier, then that's on the tournament manager it's their job to let the officials know they are ready.

As far as dunking, the official's jurisdiction does not begin until the enter the floor. The cannot penalize without being there. Dunking is not permitted for two reasons.....

1) We don't want the pregame to turn into a "one-up" contest.
2) When that happens, the dunk attempts get out of hand and backboards are at risk.

tournament managers seem to be quite a variable...and officials usually don't come out for the first 8 minutes of warm up...hence, 8 minutes of dunking and a fair amount of "one-uping"...oh well, it is what it is

 

[AllSports12]

tournament managers seem to be quite a variable...and officials usually don't come out for the first 8 minutes of warm up...hence, 8 minutes of dunking and a fair amount of "one-uping"...oh well, it is what it is

So are you saying that the officials aren't on the floor until 12 minutes prior to the start of the game?

 

[grandpoobah]

So are you saying that the officials aren't on the floor until 12 minutes prior to the start of the game?

give or take a minute or two ...yes...that is the common practice

 

[AllSports12]

Not sure what part of the state you are from, but that would be highly unusual in most parts of the state/country.

Our meeting with the captains is at the 12:00 mark and the referee heads to the table to approve the book at the 10:00 mark.

On top of all this, there are observers at every regional, district, and many of the other sectional games. Those observers would hop all over a crew arriving around the 12:00 mark and would see to it that it didn't happen again.

 

[grandpoobah]

Not sure what part of the state you are from, but that would be highly unusual in most parts of the state/country.

Our meeting with the captains is at the 12:00 mark and the referee heads to the table to approve the book at the 10:00 mark.

On top of all this, there are observers at every regional, district, and many of the other sectional games. Those observers would hop all over a crew arriving around the 12:00 mark and would see to it that it didn't happen again.

much more prevalent in the regular season

 

[Look Ma No Hands]

Team A is down by 2 points with 1 second to go and is shooting 1 FT. Everyone in the gym knows Team A will intentionally miss to attempt a tip in for 2 pts.

Team B knows this as well. So what happens if Team B obviously, intentionally and continuously commits a lane violation over and over and over again until the ball goes in? If they do this, you are essentially guaranteeing that Team A won't get a tip-in to tie the game.

I asked that question of a ref. And he said at some point there would be some kind of sportsmanship warning and maybe eventually a technical foul. Mockery / spirit of the game kind of thing. Kids doing committing a violation of the rules to benefit them.

I say, "horse crap!" Teams foul over and over and over again when they are behind late in the game to stop the clock and make the other team shoot FTs. Fouls are violations of the rules and no one intervenes there! Teams foul intentionally when they are up three in the waning seconds so a team can't attempt a 3-pt shot, and no one cares about that team violating the rules to benefit them.

I say the continuous and intentional lane violation is what it is. A lane violation every time. Period. A ref calls violations every time they're committed.

Thoughts?

 

[Look Ma No Hands]

Another one that no one will agree with me on:

Team A dunks the ball in warm-ups. So team B shoots 2 technical fouls and gets the ball out of bounds to start the game.

On the first held ball, then, Team A will get the ball out of bounds and everyone is good about that. Except me. You see, Team B might have won possession of the ball on the tip anyways, so they lost that opportunity to win the jump ball. The technical foul is only "half" of a punishment in this case.

I think the first jump ball should be a jump ball regardless of when it occurs. To start the game or not. So in this scenario I've described, after the first held ball, there should actually be a jump ball and only then after that jump ball should the alternating arrow be put in place.


EDIT: Follow this logic up with this. There is a held ball in the 2nd quarter of the game. Team A has the arrow. But team B gets called for a technical foul right after the held ball. The ball will definitely be Team A's ball out of bounds due to the technical. However, the arrow does not flip after the play because the ball wasn't inbounded due to the held ball, but due to the technical. Team A then still has the arrow. You see, I think that logic should apply to the jump ball. If there is a technical foul before the jump ball, there never was a jump ball, so the arrow shouldn't be affected. See my logic there? When Team A dunked the ball, they don't even deserve the arrow after the T. They should have to earn it with the jump ball.

 

[AllSports12]

Team A is down by 2 points with 1 second to go and is shooting 1 FT. Everyone in the gym knows Team A will intentionally miss to attempt a tip in for 2 pts.

Team B knows this as well. So what happens if Team B obviously, intentionally and continuously commits a lane violation over and over and over again until the ball goes in? If they do this, you are essentially guaranteeing that Team A won't get a tip-in to tie the game.

I asked that question of a ref. And he said at some point there would be some kind of sportsmanship warning and maybe eventually a technical foul. Mockery / spirit of the game kind of thing. Kids doing committing a violation of the rules to benefit them.

I say, "horse crap!" Teams foul over and over and over again when they are behind late in the game to stop the clock and make the other team shoot FTs. Fouls are violations of the rules and no one intervenes there! Teams foul intentionally when they are up three in the waning seconds so a team can't attempt a 3-pt shot, and no one cares about that team violating the rules to benefit them.

I say the continuous and intentional lane violation is what it is. A lane violation every time. Period. A ref calls violations every time they're committed.

Thoughts?

This play comes up on message boards every 4-5 years or so, usually originating at the lower (youth) levels.

This is an illegal act that should be penalized with a technical foul after a warning. (Benefit of the doubt given on the first violation, unless it's so egregious that it cannot be ignored. Warn after the second, whack after the third)

First, fouling at the end of the game is an accepted practice. The penalty is two (sometimes three) free throws and it is in the best interest of the team ahead to make the free throws to increase their lead.

In your play, it boils down to is this....

1) A team is violating the rules intentionally with the intent of making the other team score.

2) There is no rule forcing a team to score.

Therefore, if the repeated intentional violations are permitted to continue you will have one of the following..... (both contrary to the rules and how the game is played)

1) a game that cannot continue
2) you force a team to score

It's amazing (after 30+ years it's really not) the stuff people come up with to try to skirt the rules.

 

[AllSports12]

Another one that no one will agree with me on:

Team A dunks the ball in warm-ups. So team B shoots 2 technical fouls and gets the ball out of bounds to start the game.

On the first held ball, then, Team A will get the ball out of bounds and everyone is good about that. Except me. You see, Team B might have won possession of the ball on the tip anyways, so they lost that opportunity to win the jump ball. The technical foul is only "half" of a punishment in this case.

I think the first jump ball should be a jump ball regardless of when it occurs. To start the game or not. So in this scenario I've described, after the first held ball, there should actually be a jump ball and only then after that jump ball should the alternating arrow be put in place.


EDIT: Follow this logic up with this. There is a held ball in the 2nd quarter of the game. Team A has the arrow. But team B gets called for a technical foul right after the held ball. The ball will definitely be Team A's ball out of bounds due to the technical. However, the arrow does not flip after the play because the ball wasn't inbounded due to the held ball, but due to the technical. Team A then still has the arrow. You see, I think that logic should apply to the jump ball. If there is a technical foul before the jump ball, there never was a jump ball, so the arrow shouldn't be affected. See my logic there? When Team A dunked the ball, they don't even deserve the arrow after the T. They should have to earn it with the jump ball.

Until the FED changes the rules to revert to the point of interruption when putting the ball back into play after a technical foul, this is what you are left with.

With regards to your scenario. B shoots two and starts the game in possession of the basketball. (That's both parts of the penalty) In my opinion, the possibility of B scoring as many as 6 points before A even touches the ball would be far more attractive than having A in possession of the basketball after the penalty for the technical foul and B getting the arrow.

When Team A dunked the ball, they don't even deserve the arrow after the T. They should have to earn it with the jump ball.

Not sure what you are getting at here..... You only "earn" the arrow by losing the tip.

If there is a jump ball after A's pre-game dunk, and A loses, B gets the ball to start and A gets the arrow. (Just like after enforcing the technical foul)

If there is a jump ball and A wins it, they get the first possession after dunking and B gets the arrow. (now the penalty is only half of what it should be)

 

[Look Ma No Hands]

This is an illegal act that should be penalized with a technical foul after a warning. (Benefit of the doubt given on the first violation, unless it's so egregious that it cannot be ignored. Warn after the second, whack after the third).

If that's the case, can you quote this illegal act in the rule book. Not trying to be a smart aleck, I just want someone to show me there's a rule against intentionally breaking the rules. And if so, then why doesn't it apply to intentional fouling.

First, fouling at the end of the game is an accepted practice.

Accepted practice? Fouling is breaking the rules. Its against the rules and there is a penalty for it.

The penalty is two (sometimes three) free throws

And that's not always in the team's best interest. And the penalty of a FT violation is the team gets another chance to make the FT.

and it is in the best interest of the team ahead to make the free throws to increase their lead.

But it is not in the best interest of the team to shoot the FTs. They don't want to shoot the FTs. But they have to because the other team broke the rules. So when there's a FT violation, the other team gets to (has to) shoot the FT again. It shouldn't matter what the situation is.

So its OK to make the other team shoot FTs at the end of the game by breaking the rules of fouling, but it is not OK to make the other team to shoot FTs at the end of the game because of a lane violation?

Breaking rules is breaking rules. There are penalties for breaking rules.

In your play, it boils down to is this....

1) A team is violating the rules intentionally with the intent of making the other team score. (not too unlike intentionally fouling)

2) There is no rule forcing a team to score. (but there is a rule for a lane violation, and that is the rule being violated)

Therefore, if the repeated intentional violations are permitted to continue you will have one of the following..... (both contrary to the rules (which rules?) and how the game is played)

1) a game that cannot continue
2) you force a team to score (well, actually, at some point the ball will go in. we have all seen "intentional misses" that have gone in the basket)

It's amazing (after 30+ years it's really not) the stuff people come up with to try to skirt the rules. (I wouldn't agree that this is skirting the rules no more than intentional fouls are)

The irony is you and I have had the discussion that there are coaches at the Division I level (and I gave you a name in an earlier private message) and at other levels that think it is wrong to tell young people to foul at the end of the game. They think it is a bad message to tell a young man to break the rules because it gives you a better chance to win. They don't think you should teach young people that the ends justifies the means. You don't believe those coaches exist. I know they do. I gave you a name. I can give you his phone number too. But those coaches are few. You might say that it is "accepted practice," but don't discount those who think there is a higher calling in the educational experience within the athletic experience.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't want to see intentional lane violations at the end of a game. On the contrary I really don't want to see kids intentionally breaking any rules at the end of a game. It bugs me that everyone is OK with the practice of breaking some of the rules, but only selected ones.

I'm done preaching for now.