Sideline Rules (in KU/OU game)

[BCClone]

I thought Kansas won? What the heck was I watching?!?

Then why are you on an isu board arguing about an okie/KU game? You got the benefit of the call and I have no idea why you're arguing like you lost.

Gotta be, like Brent mussburger says, the smokin holly Rowe.

 

[Cycsk]

Yes, they did. And they didn't. That doesn't negate the fact that Georges was called for fouling the jackwagon that was SITTING ON HIM. If you don't see the problem with that foul...or the extra foul Withey had in that game...

The game might not have required OT, might have ended with regulation if not for the bogus foul & subsequent FT's. KU might have inbounded and made the shot, or ISU might have made the stop. BUT NEITHER TEAM GOT THE CHANCE BECAUSE OF THE BOGUS FOUL ON GEORGES.

Oh hell, why bother?

The most annoying thing about Tuco is that he will talk about any and everything that serves his purposes, but the Niang call is "another topic." I might be able to tolerate his presence on the thread if he were ever to admit that the Niang call was a bad call. Plenty of us have admitted that we think the Mason call on the steal was bad. I might even be able to tolerate him if he said that Mason's play at the end of the game was ballsy and that a real winner takes risks that include daring the ref to make the call. But to just continue to not admit the obvious, with Mason and Niang, just leads me to keep him on "ignore" and try not to address him directly or reply to his posts (as I have done too many times).

 

[BCClone]

That's really quite the photo with Holly just framed there like that.

She must Rowe his boat!!!

 

[Cycsk]

Tuco, do you think the court at AFH is setup against NCAA rules?

Great question.

What are the odds that Tuco will not give a straight answer? 100 to 1?

Over/under on stupid replies that don't give a straight answer? 5.

Odds that he changes the subject and gives a straight answer to his own question? Even money.

 

[Cycsk]

I have reffed since mid 80's. I think the 3 ft in bound portion of this talk comes from old time gyms where there was only 18 inches or so out of bounds. Those courts were marked with a dashed line 3 ft in from the out of bounds. This dashed line was the out of bounds during the throw in and no players (offense or defense) could cross it. In theory, this dashed line only exists during the throw in. Once the throw in is complete, the dashed line becomes irrelevant and is ignored for all rule interpretations.

Thanks. It is great to hear from another actual ref with experience. And I'm glad to have confirmation that they used to have the dashed line 3 feet inside the boundary line. I am even remembering some very odd rules, such as not being able to bounce the ball within those 3 feet when you made an in-bounds pass.

It is fascinating to me how many of us assumed that there was a rule about defenders having to be 3 feet back when it doesn't seem to exist. I suppose it is just common sense for a ref to try to give someone space, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to require it . . . except for the 3 to 10 feet outside the boundary line so that the inbounding player can step back (as Buddy Hield could not do at AFH).

 

[keepngoal]

Great question.

What are the odds that Tuco will not give a straight answer? 100 to 1?

Over/under on stupid replies that don't give a straight answer? 5.

Odds that he changes the subject and gives a straight answer to his own question? Even money.

He already replied stating the NCAA rule book is too complicated for him.

 

[randomfan44]

The most annoying thing about Tuco is that he will talk about any and everything that serves his purposes, but the Niang call is "another topic." I might be able to tolerate his presence on the thread if he were ever to admit that the Niang call was a bad call. Plenty of us have admitted that we think the Mason call on the steal was bad. I might even be able to tolerate him if he said that Mason's play at the end of the game was ballsy and that a real winner takes risks that include daring the ref to make the call. But to just continue to not admit the obvious, with Mason and Niang, just leads me to keep him on "ignore" and try not to address him directly or reply to his posts (as I have done too many times).

Good grief. I have had about 30 separate conversations about that specific Niang/EJ play.

 

[randomfan44]

Great question. What are the odds that Tuco will not give a straight answer? 100 to 1? Over/under on stupid replies that don't give a straight answer? 5. Odds that he changes the subject and gives a straight answer to his own question? Even money.

No, I do not think that Allen Fieldhouse is set up in violation of ncaa rules.

 

[Cycsk]

He already replied stating the NCAA rule book is too complicated for him.

As per usual. And soon he will be using the rule book when it is to his advantage. Pathetic troll he is.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

No, I do not think that Allen Fieldhouse is set up in violation of ncaa rules.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MBBFullCourtDiagram_20150820.pdf

Specifically the part at the top right of the diagram: "Out of bounds area. Minimum of 3'. Preferable 10' of unobstructed space outside."

Three feet. Yeah...not seeing it there...

 

[CyArob]

Kansas invented basketball. They just create their own rules at AFH, right?

 

[Deleted member 8507]

Thanks. It is great to hear from another actual ref with experience. And I'm glad to have confirmation that they used to have the dashed line 3 feet inside the boundary line. I am even remembering some very odd rules, such as not being able to bounce the ball within those 3 feet when you made an in-bounds pass.

It is fascinating to me how many of us assumed that there was a rule about defenders having to be 3 feet back when it doesn't seem to exist. I suppose it is just common sense for a ref to try to give someone space, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules to require it . . . except for the 3 to 10 feet outside the boundary line so that the inbounding player can step back (as Buddy Hield could not do at AFH).

There is no rule positioning the inbounds players other than they cannot break the out of bounds plane. They are free to move anywhere within the inbounds playing court right up to the plane. The out of bounds player has the responsibility to move back to create space, that is why they ask for 3' back depth. The dashed line WAS the out of bounds line until the ball was touched inbounds, completing the inbounds throw attempt, thus a player within the dashed line, or bouncing the ball in the dashed line is officially out of bounds.

 

[VeloClone]

Kansas invented basketball. They just create their own rules at AFH, right?

Naismith invented basketball but he did it in Springfield, Mass long before he was in Lawrence.

 

[Cycsk]

There is no rule positioning the inbounds players other than they cannot break the out of bounds plane. They are free to move anywhere within the inbounds playing court right up to the plane. The out of bounds player has the responsibility to move back to create space, that is why they ask for 3' back depth. The dashed line WAS the out of bounds line until the ball was touched inbounds, completing the inbounds throw attempt, thus a player within the dashed line, or bouncing the ball in the dashed line is officially out of bounds.

Thanks. That makes sense of my ancient memories . . . from way back in the 70's.

 

[CycloneWarning]

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MBBFullCourtDiagram_20150820.pdf

Specifically the part at the top right of the diagram: "Out of bounds area. Minimum of 3'. Preferable 10' of unobstructed space outside."

Three feet. Yeah...not seeing it there...

Shhhh, don't confuse him with facts out of the NCAA rule book. The ref should have taken control and given OU a chance to fairly inbound the ball given the inadequate space provided in AFH.

Let alone the same ref missed Mason clearly stepping out of bounds and then being the first player to touch the ball inbounds, another violation.

But same day, different screw job at AFH. RCKBoooo!

 

[VeloClone]

Shhhh, don't confuse him with facts out of the NCAA rule book. The ref should have taken control and given OU a chance to fairly inbound the ball given the inadequate space provided in AFH.

Let alone the same ref missed Mason clearly stepping out of bounds and then being the first player to touch the ball inbounds, another violation.

But same day, different screw job at AFH. RCKBoooo!

I'm pretty sure as long as he establishes himself back in bounds it isn't a violation. Maybe you are confused with a football rule? You will sometimes see a player get a rebound falling out of bounds, drop the ball in bounds, regain his balance, step back in and recollect the ball.

 

[randomfan44]

Let alone the same ref missed Mason clearly stepping out of bounds and then being the first player to touch the ball inbounds, another violation.

Um, no. That is not a violation. If Mason had been in control of the ball prior to going out of bounds then it would be. Otherwise, it is not.

 

[Deleted member 8507]

Speaking of inbound throw attempts, one of my favorites is when fans get all worked up from a player out of bounds in their front court throwing the ball into the back court. When the ball is out of bounds there is no front court/back court status so it can be first touched anywhere on the court legally. If they want to throw it from under their own basket to the other end line, that is legal, as long as it is possessed inbounds.

 

[randomfan44]

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MBBFullCourtDiagram_20150820.pdf Specifically the part at the top right of the diagram: "Out of bounds area. Minimum of 3'. Preferable 10' of unobstructed space outside." Three feet. Yeah...not seeing it there...

There's three feet of floor there. Part of it just has a media table sitting on it... It doesn't say "three unobstructed feet".

 

[randomfan44]

Naismith invented basketball but he did it in Springfield, Mass long before he was in Lawrence.

Naismith was the least successful coach we ever had, the bum.