Quote:
Originally Posted by Loudwhistle
A SPECIFIC UNSPORTING ACT
10.1.8 SITUATION: Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket.
RULING: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situation if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins: (a) charge Team A with a technical foul; (b) cancel the field goal; (c) cancel any common foul(s) committed and any nonflagrant foul against A2 in the act of shooting; and (d) put “consumed” time back on the clock.
COMMENT: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball.
JR,
That was why I asked my original question. This OP was different because the reff "made" the ball live by handing the ball to the player. And we know once the throwin is complete, its not changeable. In the comment section of the case play the, "If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion" I took this to mean that the "confusion" can also be with the reff versus the players. In the OP the players and coach intentionally "confuse" the reff, couldn't one use this to say that this is not covered by rule and thus wipe the made 3 away?
|
How is it not covered by rule when the case play specifically states,
"This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball."