Yes, unless the player throwing in the ball, makes,(or initiates) contact with the defender, like throwing his arms into the defender. I'm going to make sure that the defender makes contact with the offense.

And this is EXACTLY why I wanted to bring this up for discussion, as there seems to be separate interpretations in the case book and rules book. The defender is allowed to essentially take a handoff from the thrower by taking it out of his hands (legal by case book play 7.6.4A), yet if the offensive player does the same, then the thrower seems to have violated by rule 7-6-2. So which ruling should apply for the offensive player?

Also, and I realize that the case book play deems it legal, so we need to officiate as such, but why is it not a violation on the thrower in when the defender take the ball from them? They have not completed a throw-in as defined by the rule book.

Because they didn't violate. No where is it a violation for crossing the OOB plane while holding the ball. It becomes a violation when let's say coming from inbounds the ball or the player with possession makes contact with OOB.

The plane doesn't cause the violation. Therefore if the ball is within the playing area why would be call a violation when the defense makes a clean play on the ball? We would call the violation when teammates make simultaneous contact with the ball and one is OOB and one is inbounds.

Now the million dollar question for you. IF this is an AP throw in and a teammate makes contact with the ball what do you have?

Why would you stop play and award B a throw-in when they already have the ball? Seems moot at that point, which is probably the reasoning for the different treatment.

Ball is live during a throw-in.

I'm going with a violation, ball goes to other team, AP doesn't change bc throw in was not legally completed



I wish I had a cool signature

They aren't separate interpretations. It is two different situations and two different rules. One applies to the defense and one applies to the offense.

bzzzt.

Unless, of course, that is another of those "I understand the rules, but they seem inconsistent to me" posts.

6-4-5 . . . The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates.

See also Case Book 6.4.5 SITUATION A . . .A violation by Team A during an alternating-possession throw-in is the only way a team loses its turn under the procedure. . .

So, when Team A is entitled to an AP TI, any violation by Team A, during that TI, will result in loss of possession, and loss of the AP Arrow.

And I absolutely agree with your logic, I just don't want to base things on a common sense check, rather, I want to be sure the rules also support it

I don't know if my previous post was clear, I was referring to it being a violation on the offense, not the defense. Either way, the defense would get the ball, so the act of calling it dead is somewhat moot, as scrounge indicated.

Ok so couple things. 1 will be rules related and the other just ruminations.

1. 2 ways for a throw in to end --> violation on offense or ball legally touched. So since I said earlier that the plane does not matter as far as the status of the ball (i.e. OOB or inbouncs) holding the ball over the plane is nothing. So if the ball is held over the court and defense touches the ball why would you have a violation on the offense? The action of making contact with the ball was by the defense. But it doesn't make sense to call this a violation on the defense as the ball is within the playing confines and over the court to which they have a right to be.

2. Lets say white A1 has the ball in bounds during play play causes him to lose the ball and fall OOB. (A) His teammate OR (B) and opponent picks up the ball and A1, still OOB, reaches and makes contact with the ball in both scenarios. In both cases the call is OOB on A1 and it's blue's ball. Now apply this logic to your first question. What did the defense do to deserve a violation?

So I'll respond to a couple of parts that I've marked above-

Bold: My reasoning is that the offense failed to complete a legal throw in, as the rules continually define the throw in ending when: "...The thrown ball..." 9.2.2 says in part, "The ball shall be passed by the thrower..." with the penalty at the end of the section being, "The ball becomes dead when the violation occurs." From this wording, it seems to me that the ball MUST be passed on to the court.

Underline: Agree 100%. I don't think there is any justification for a defensive violation in any of these scenarios (Where they don't reach over the plane.)

Red: Again, nothing. My arguement is that I think the rules support an offensive violation, if anything.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that I would call this any different than what the case book indicates, but I do think that there is some inconsistencies in the way the rule is written, and how it is ruled in the case book.

Yes....and a stupid one too.

It should only apply for contact that occurs through the plane, not when the thrower puts the ball/arms on the inbounds side of the plane where the defense IS permitted to play the ball.

They do.