Held ball during AP throw in
 

B1 commits a violation and A1 is awarded the ball out of bounds. During the throw in A1 holds the ball through the boundary plane and B1 ties the ball up to a point that we have a held ball situation.

The AP arrow is pointing to team A. The ball is awarded to team A for another throw in. The same situation occurs and A1 holds the ball through the boundary plane. B1 again grabs and ties the ball up where we have another held ball situation.

Which team is awarded the ball?

Rules reference?

I don't have my rule book here with me right this moment, but the correct ruling is that A1 would be awarded another AP throw-in.

Here is why:

1. A1 has the ball for the AP throw-in. B1 ties up A1. By rule, the throw-in never ended (check out the section in the rule book that explains when a throw-in ends).
2. Since the throw-in never ended, the arrow was never changed.
3. Since the arrow never changed, the resulting AP throw-in is again awarded to A1 (check out the section that lists when the AP arrow is set/changed in the rule book).
4. Once this throw-in ends, the arrow will be changed to point to Team B.

The answer to the question all comes down to knowing when the arrow is switched per rule, which also requires knowledge of when a throw-in ends.

The exception would be if the violation occurred during a jump ball. The AP arrow would be set to B when the ball is put at A's disposal.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Casebook Proof these guys were discussing.
 

6.4.5 Situation B:

During an alternating-possession throw-in, thrower A1 holds the ball through the end-line plane and B1 grabs it, resulting in a held ball.

RULING: Since the throw-in had not ended and no violation occurred, it is still A's ball for an alternating-possession throw-in. (4-42-5).

Peace

Thank you. There was some debate among the natives on the point of legal touching the ball in bounds.

Does the same apply if the ball is thrown in and simultaneously held by A2 & B2?

No. In this case the throw-in has ended.

I think this sucks. If nothing else has happened (fouls etc), this just punishes team B for playing astute throw in defense. If team A thrower in holds ball over the playing surface and you tie it up 15 times, they get to keep the ball each time it happens? Chalk this up to one of the worst rules of basketball


I wish I had a cool signature

I agree...you would think that since B is legally in bounds and the ball has now touched a player in-bounds, the throw in SHOULD end. Maybe something for a rules change in the future :confused:

All this is logical, but how many times have any of you ever seen this happen? Change the rule, (if anybody knew about it, but they wouldn't) and it encourages the defender to be more active in reaching for the ball, which would result in more technical and intentional fouls.

I think the rule is fine. If you push the thrower back (or sometimes the defender) a little so this is not an issue, you do not have to worry about this even taking place.

I do not think it is enough of a big deal to even change the rule or interpretation.

Peace

If the defense had played so well, they would have taken the ball from the thrower. Instead, they only shared possession of the ball. They only got it half way. AP arrow is the right thing to do.

Plus, if they do it 15 times in a row, I'm buying a lottery ticket that day and will win the big prize!

If this is the worst rule ever, then I'd say the basketball rules committee has done a pretty damn good job, because this is something that you could go your entire officiating career and not see happen.

I'm still saying from all points of my view, referee/fan/former player, this is just silly. Very poor interpretation of throw in ending. I understand the rule and if it ever happened will adjudicate correctly but still think it is silly that the same team would keep getting the ball back no matter how many times it occurred. Nothing said here thus far has changed the fact the defense is getting kinda screwed on this play.


I wish I had a cool signature

Good thing you said the underlined part above, because when you start thinking like the bolded part, you become more of a fan than an official and you start to make calls based on what seems fair, not what the rules call for.

I came close. I ruled a held ball in a situation like this, but the original throw-in was not an AP throw-in.

And even that I have only seen once in 7+ years.

And yes, of course it was a 7th grade girls game. I mean, seriously....where else? :D

How? They didn't make a good enough play to take the ball so why should they be awarded the ball?

So we should reward the defender for grabbing a ball that was basically handed to him by the inbounder?

Or is it because the defender knows the rule, in which case we should also let defenders use their feet to block passes because they know that it's a kicking violation, and we should reward them for knowing the rule.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

What does it matter either way? As long as we know the rules and can explain them quickly when questioned.

Your second paragraph leaves me confused. :confused:

I was responding to the idea that the rule is not fair to the defense.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Isn't that almost always the case in a held ball? The ball is held by both parties, correct?? So neither of them have full possession??? In this exact case of the OP, not the other stuff that has been mentioned, I don't agree that it should keep being an AP throw in. I know my opinion on the rules matters not when I'm calling but this, to me, does not pass the smell test. To me, a held ball should be that, period, and go to arrow, regardless of when/where/why the play started.

I will say that I hope I don't ever have this in a game but given this convo, I'll be well informed to make the right call as that is really all that matters.


I wish I had a cool signature

NCAA tried a rule that defense gets the ball on a held ball (implemented following a NCAA Tournament game that essentially ended on a possession arrow returning the ball to the offense with only seconds left) on the idea that the defense played good defense. (Kinda like the change from jump ball to turn over on closely guarded.)

It was a mess and I believe only lasted one season.

I'm not saying defense should get the ball every time. I'm saying when a held ball occurs, we should go to the arrow for next possession. As in the OP, the ball would go to defense. I am simply saying held ball should be a held ball, regardless of how ball was coming into play


I wish I had a cool signature

Again, this is a very rare situation in the first place. And if it happens the defense did not really make the best play, because if they did, they would have pulled the ball away from the thrower. And they did not get an intentional foul or even technical by not touching the thrower on the other side of the line or dislodging the ball. So much could have gone wrong for the defense here and they just caused us to blow the whistle.

Peace

I think the rule that team A would keep the alternating possesion arrow if they commit a foul before the throw-in if completed seems more strange than the held ball situation (especially given that team A would lose the arrow for a violation).

That situatuation does actually happen every once in a while and almost always requires a trip to the table after the throw in for the foul to tell them to put the arrow back to the offensive team.

Why is this so tough to accept? An AP throw-in ENDS when ONLY 2 scenarios are met. If neither scenario is met then the AP throw-in has not concluded therefore the arrow doesn't change.

What does fair and rules have to do with anything?

I accept it just fine. My point is that the tie up by the defense, imo, should end the throw in. The ball is being touched in bounds, legally. Again, imo, why is it at that point any different from any other held ball!!!! My point that it's not fair has been the focus of too much. I concede that fairness isn't an issue for the rules of this situation but the fact remains that the ball is being possessed by both teams over the playing surface i.e. INBOUNDS. I get the rule but as I have stated, I disagree with it. Doesn't mean I don't understand it. I know it rarely happens but I think it is a poorly written rule. I just don't agree the AP should supersede so much. But maybe I'm just totally missing the point.


I wish I had a cool signature

Wrong. The throw in ends when the "passed" ball is legally touched in bounds or a violation by the team doing the throw in.

That actually will help me with all this (minor as it is). So, thank you for clarifying. Missed the one word that really matters as I often do.

While I still feel the held ball should be a held ball, I see now the intent of the rule as currently written. Thanks


I wish I had a cool signature

It is a held ball, and we are going to the arrow. The arrow simply doesn't change in this situation, because the throw in never legally ended, which means the arrow changes.

It already does. That is the point. It keeps going to the arrow, which remains with the throwing team until the throwin is released such that it touches a player inbounds (or the throwing team violates).

And it can't change until that time because there might be a foul (far more likely than repeat held balls) and they don't want a team to lose the arrow if they're fouled (or if they foul) before the throwin is complete.

Cameron and OkRef, thanks. All this convo has clarified the situation for me. Now, here's to it not happening any in my games!


I wish I had a cool signature

How are they punished? Did someone take 30 lashes?

For the record, I advocate for switching the arrow when it's handed to the thrower, but I'm such a minority on that I have come to accept it will never happen.

Has this case book play changed, I seem to remember a different ruling several years ago?

I don't think it has changed.

Im thinking it might of been before the change to the AP throw-in rule.

In Iowa, before the two governing bodies started working towards making their rules the same, the Girls' Union had a modification that changed the arrow on an AP throw in as soon as the ball was handed to the thrower. I don't know if other states had such modifications at one time, but as far as I'm aware the NFHS has never been different.

There is actually a third scenario that ends the throw in, and it directly relates to this. If instead of tying the ball up, the team B player simply pulls the ball away from the offense, then he has gained possession and the throw in has subsequent ended. The ball was not thrown in bounds, nor did the offense violate.

A related question, can the thrower in reach the ball across the in bound plane, and hand the ball off to a teammate just over the line? My immediate thought is no, and I think I could probably support that with the rules, but why is a defender allowed to grab the ball in that same scenario legally and play on? Shouldn't the same rules apply to both teams here?

Do you have rules or caseplay that support the part in red?

Where in the rules is the bold supported? We only have support for a held ball, there is none for a "steal".

7.6.4 situation a

7.6.4:A
While attempting a throw in A1 holds the ball through the plane of the end line. B1 (a) slaps the ball from A1's hand(s); or (b) simply grabs the ball and then throws it through B's basket.

Ruling: In (a), no violation has occurred and play continues. In (b), score two points for B.

I wanted freezer to find that, mostly because he would then look further and figure out the answer to his second question regarding teammates and handoffs.

I already knew the case play ruling, which is why I brought the original question up in the first place. But again I ask, is it legal to hand the ball off, such that both the player in bounds and the player out of bounds are both touching the ball at the same time? The case book ruling for a defender makes me say it's legal, but I want to see if anyone has a different ruling they can find that would disagree with that, as it's one of those things that doesn't seem to pass the eye test, so I want to have proper justification.

7-6-2
The throw-in begins when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw in. The thrower shall release the ball on a pass directly into the court, except as in 7-5-7, within 5 seconds after the throw in begins.

Note however that if B makes contact with A in this situation, it's an intentional foul (by rule)

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.

I agree with this. If the offense puts it across the line it should be no foul.

Dammit!!!! I really should have read that better. I'm an idiot. But, that is why I'm on here. I have learned a ton more by being an active participant than by just reading and lurking. More I engage in here has helped me (at least I think it has) be more engaged in games watching for things that are discussed here in hopes I don't screw them up in a real game.


I wish I had a cool signature

Mainly agree. If the defender hits arms, not ball, then it should be a foul still, but not an intentional.

That's not how the rule reads.

PENALTIES: (Art. 10)
1. The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of
the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one delay
warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the
opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.
2. The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed
to the offending team. See 10-1-5c Penalty.
3. If an opponent(s) reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and
touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being
passed to a teammate outside the boundary line (as in 7-5-7), a technical
foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. See
10-3-10 Penalty.
4. If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall
be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required

There is no stipulation that it must be behind the boundary plane.

He's not saying it is. Just stating, in his opinion, that he believes if the offense puts the ball across the line, it shouldn't be an intentional foul. I don't think he is inferring anything different than what the rule is.

Yup you are correct. I just went back and re-read.

Never said it did. I was suggesting what the rule should be. While it is an intentional foul by rule, it makes no sense.

Throw-ins end when the throw-in team violates.