Inbound pass goes to team mate OOB

[Hardwood]

A1 is attempting to inbound the ball from the endline. He throws the ball to A2 who is standing with one foot out of bounds on the sideline. Where his the subsequent throw-in spot?
(I know this has been asked and answered, but I can not find the thread.)

[just another ref]

B's ball at the spot where it was touched by A2.

[David M]

I believe the throw in would be at the original spot.

[Snaqwells]

Originally Posted by David M

I believe the throw in would be at the original spot.

This use to be the case; no longer. It was an unannounced change of a little known rule. This is not a throwin violation, it's an OOB violation on the receiver of the pass.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This use to be the case; no longer. It was an unannounced change of a little known rule. This is not a throwin violation, it's an OOB violation on the receiver of the pass.

Well, sort of. It was a shortlived rule. It was always at the spot of A2, then a case play came about that made it a throwin violation and put it at the spot of the throw in. But that didn't make sense if B2 was the one to have touched the ball and it only lasted just 1-2 years before it was reversed to what it had been forever.

[Snaqwells]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, sort of. It was a shortlived rule. It was always at the spot of A2, then a case play came about that made it a throwin violation and put it at the spot of the throw in. But that didn't make sense if B2 was the one to have touched the ball and it only lasted just 1-2 years before it was reversed to what it had been forever.

I was thinking it was a slight editorial change in the rules and penalties. I do remember the change came shortly after someone in here (Nevada?) posted the rule/case. No one here knew of the original change, but we were all over it when they changed it back.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was thinking it was a slight editorial change in the rules and penalties. I do remember the change came shortly after someone in here (Nevada?) posted the rule/case. No one here knew of the original change, but we were all over it when they changed it back.

Yep, here are the relevant threads in chronological order.


Nov 2006: Where is the Throw-in?

March 2007: Situation: Where to inbounds the ball

Nov 2007: Throw-in violation or OOB violation?

[representing]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This use to be the case; no longer. It was an unannounced change of a little known rule. This is not a throwin violation, it's an OOB violation on the receiver of the pass.

No time taken off of clock, right?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by representing

No time taken off of clock, right?

I disagree. The touching itself was legal. The position of the player was not. The game clock should start and stop very quickly.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree. The touching itself was legal. The position of the player was not. The game clock should start and stop very quickly.

nah

[representing]

Originally Posted by just another ref

nah

I agree (if he's disagreeing with Nevada).

The violation first is that he was out of bounds. The touching of the ball would happen at the same time while he's still out of bounds. I wouldn't take any time off the clock. Would be a good question to bring up with my buddies when we go out after our games tomorrow.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by representing

I agree (if he's disagreeing with Nevada).

The violation first is that he was out of bounds. The touching of the ball would happen at the same time while he's still out of bounds. I wouldn't take any time off the clock. Would be a good question to bring up with my buddies when we go out after our games tomorrow.

For the record, I've changed my mind on this since this previous thread:
5-9-4 unannounced change

I now agree with Snaqwells point in post #9. If the touch is legal and reverses the AP arrow, then it must be legal for the clock starting as well. We need to be consistent.

What made me change my mind was the NFHS publishing this interpretation about a month after that thread:

2007-08 NFHS Basketball 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)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree. The touching itself was legal. The position of the player was not. The game clock should start and stop very quickly.

And, if the clock does not start, how much time do you take off? Do you have an official's count, or some other definite knowledge, to back up how much time is deducted?

Conversely, you're watching the clock while your partner calls this violation, and you see the clock start, but not stop for a few seconds after, how much time do you put back on? Iow, at what time did the violation occur after the clock (properly?) started? Again, is there definite knowledge?