"Long Jump" on a Throw In?

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sounds good, but I'm having some trouble (can't really put my finger on it, it's just a bad feeling) giving my full agreement.

In the words of the great, esteemed Forum member, Freddy ...



I guess that I need a little push.

This is a very interesting thread. I hope that we eventually get a definitive answer.

It appears that this element of a throw-in is an omission in the verbiage, that allows a loophole. That is, since there is technically no "spot", when a thrower has the opportunity to run the endline, then he/she can't be penalized for "one foot not being on or over the 'spot' when the ball is released."
Logic may seem to be that "one foot must still be on or over the oob area behind the endline, when the ball is released," but the lack of such a statement in the rule can be the basis for a non-violation in such a case, and the genesis of this thread.

[JugglingReferee]

Allowing this isn't desirable to the game. It'll be successful only a minute percentage of the time, with little to gain and more to lose.

And I do believe it violates the on or over stipulation. I say it's a violation.

On a play with the end line, the term spot infers the entire end line, imho.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

By your assessment of relevant rules, would you deem it correct to say that on a throw-in the thrower must "have something out and nothing in", to use a phrase? I'd like to be able to say that. But I'm not quite there yet.......

Freddy:

I would prefer to use the following phrase to describe the violation: "Everything out and nothing in or over the throw-in spot."


I would also like to add:

1) There are two types of throw-in spots and they are defined by the width of the spot: a) Designated Throw-in Spot (three feet wide). b) A throw-in after a successful FG, FT, or awarded points (the width of the basketball court: behind the End Line between the Side Lines). The depth of both (a) and (b) are the same.

2) The throw-in rules apply equally to both (a) and (b).

3) NFHS R4-S46-A2 NOTE is the governing rule in either (a) or (b).

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

9-2-10 Note can be read as allowing the player to jump over the court, as long as the ball is released before the court (or anyone on the court) is touched.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

9-2-10 Note can be read as allowing the player to jump over the court, as long as the ball is released before the court (or anyone on the court) is touched.

Bob:

I have to disagree. I do not remember when the rule was changed in both NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's but there was a time when it was a throw-in violation for the thrower to hold the ball through boundary line plane. The rule was written such that of the thrower broke the boundary line plane with the ball while releasing the pass it was a throw-in violation. The NOTE lends itself to an "old" rule and how the "new" rule pertains to the thrower-in's opponent. R4-S42-A6 NOTE still is the governing rule. And it also applies in both NCAA Men's and Women's.

MTD, Sr.

[Jesse James]

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

2) Watching the inbounder launch himself toward the hoop, attempt a shot (I know it's not a try, and can't score, but the defense won't) and have the defender called for an intentional foul for contacting the inbounder.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

2) Watching the inbounder launch himself toward the hoop, attempt a shot (I know it's not a try, and can't score, but the defense won't) and have the defender called for an intentional foul for contacting the inbounder.

And THAT is precisely why the change to the inbounder/intentional rule is idiotic. They should have left it as an intentional foul to contact the thrower across the plane, not just contacting the inbounder. If the inbounder wants to extend any part of their body across the line, they should loose the protection of being a thrower if fouled on those parts.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

2) Watching the inbounder launch himself toward the hoop, attempt a shot (I know it's not a try, and can't score, but the defense won't) and have the defender called for an intentional foul for contacting the inbounder.

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

Yet we have another rule that says it is an intentional foul to CONTACT the thrower regardless of where the contact is made.

So, you could have a foul, caused by the thrower that meets the definition of a PC (perhaps the thrower shoves the defender away), but is also a throwin violation and also an intentional foul. All by rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Wouldn't #1 be impossible? I would have a violation for contacting a defender inbounds at the first touch with the defender. So before a PC would occur, the ball would be dead and other contact would be ignored unless intentional or flagrant. Am I missing something?

Case 9.2.5B indicates that the official needs to judge whether it's a violation or a foul.

It doesn't help answer the "PC" question because it just says that it's a Personal foul -- it doesn't specify PC or (just) common or I or F.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Case 9.2.5B .

9.2.5 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being
guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out
and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance.
RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds
until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she
has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul shall
be called. (9-2-10 Note)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

9-2-10 Note can be read as allowing the player to jump over the court, as long as the ball is released before the court (or anyone on the court) is touched.

NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds
area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent
in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

9-2-10 Note can be read as allowing the player to jump over the court, as long as the ball is released before the court (or anyone on the court) is touched.

Correct, it could. However the NOTE after 4-42-6 requires that, "The thrower must keep one foot on our over the spot until the ball is released. " Therefore is it correct that, at least with a designated spot throw in, the long jumper is not complying and is illegal?
What seems interesting is that the same doesn't seem to prevail for a throw in after a made our awarded basket where there is no designated spot.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yet we have another rule that says it is an intentional foul to CONTACT the thrower regardless of where the contact is made.

So, you could have a foul, caused by the thrower that meets the definition of a PC (perhaps the thrower shoves the defender away), but is also a throwin violation and also an intentional foul. All by rule.

I think this is a stretch, Camron. How do you interpret the thrower pushing the defender as an intentional foul on the defender? The defender did not contact the thrower. The opposite happened.

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This thread gives me two more things to see before I die

1) Seeing a defender draw a PC foul on the inbounder

I think you mean TC foul