Inbound pass hits referee OOB
 

In a scrimmage today I administered a throw in baseline. The inbounder immediately threw the ball at such an angle that it hit my hand that was raised to chop the clock. Ball deflected off my hand onto the court. I was so startled and did not make a call and the ball ultimately was picked up by B. No one on the crew had ever seen this before. I am thinking the play should of been whistled dead as the ball struck me out of bonds and given to team B as a turnover.

Interpretations?

Throw-in did not go directly onto court.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

2-ball location (I think) -- a bal hitting an official is the bsame as the ball hitting the court where the official is standing.

No different from a bounce pass hitting out of bounds -- violation.

Now, I've never seen this (ball hitting the official), so I might wonder about the official's mechanics.

Agree. If it it the official's hand, the pass was either not even going towards the court or the official was far to close to the boundary line. The administering official should be BEHIND the level of the thrower looking across the thrower and out towards the court. No way the ball should ever come near the officials hand if so.

I'm agreeing with the general opinion that this is a violation. However, if it were me and I realized my mechanic/position put the thrower at a disadvantage, I'd probably blow it dead and give them a do-over. And if the opposing coach took issue, I'd just say, "honestly, I screwed up and was not in proper position; not his fault."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is never correct to re-do anything under NFHS rules. Please don't ever do this in a HS game. Save it for little kiddie rec play.

Your purism is duly noted as usual. I would expect nothing less from you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't seem thrilled with Nevada's response. How about this: Your solution isn't supported by rule. The affected coach may not like losing possession but sometimes that's life.

Beubg ut of position is NOT a reason for any kinkd of "do-over."

We've all been somewhere out of position and affected play at sometime. Learn from it. that's all.

What you're all saying is well-founded, and you know that for the most part I'm a rules stickler. I would never correct something that a rule does not allow me to if subsequent action occurred following that error (one must avoid dealing with the fruit of the poisonous tree), to include time running off the clock. But in my hypothetical case, it was 100% my fault, no subsequent action and/or time loss occurred, and thus no advantage or disadvantage fell on either team. There are (rare) times when the human factor and/or the intent of a rule trump the literal rule itself. It's a judgment thing. I know not everyone will agree with me and I'm ok with that.

BUT! To avoid the situation in the OP, I always take a subtle step backwards after putting the ball at the thrower's disposal. I'm 100% sure I call a violation in this case if it was a matter of the thrower making a less than advisable pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is most certainly not your fault that the Thrower could not pass the ball in such a manner that complied with the rules. The Thrower violated the Throw-in Rules. Call the Violation.

MTD, Sr.

I wouldn't recommend doing this in anything above a YMCA game.

There are plenty of times where sideline logistics prevent us from getting behind a thrower, or the thrower moves back (ok, this one is rare) after we hand or bounce the ball. The thrower is expected to not hit us with the ball in this case.

Official's mechanic I would use is the following:

Stop the clock; open hand (whistle)
Then point to the floor out of bounds then point to floor in bounds and back. Similar to "back court" violation.
Then Team direction and then spot throw in.

I mean the mechanics that caused the official to be hit in the first place, not the mechanics of making the call once it happened.

You can use the most awkward mechanics ever, still doesn't change that you are part of the court while you're on it.

If you're standing out of bounds it's out.

If you're inbound the ball is live and the thrower can't touch it until another player does.

Question here: Assume you are talking about a throw in hitting an official on court (inbounds), but what ref is not going to be oob when a throw in is occurring? Hijacking here a bit, but if a live ball that is passed hits a ref inbounds, we know the ball is still live, but could that same player (passer) be the first to touch?

Huh? You just quoted a person who said the thrower can't be the first to touch. What have you changed in the scenario that would make the answer different? :confused:

If I bounce on a sideline, I'm likely on the floor inbounds.

The ball could hit a referee other than the administering referee.

The OP was a "live ball" being passed. I assume you mean a pass from a player inbounds, not a ball being inbounded. In that case, treat the ball hitting the official and being touched by the passer as a dribble. Whether it's legal or not will depend on what happened before the dribble.

Sorry, yes I meant a ball already in play inbounds. If A1 ends his dribble and in an attempt to pass to A2, the ball hits a ref standing inbounds, can A1 then be the first to touch or retrieve the ball as it caroms off ref? Would we treat it as a fumble?

You said he passed the ball, that's an intentional act. How could we then say it was a fumble?

What do the rule and case book say about an official's status in regards to being hit by the basketball?

Well, if I knew that, I would not have wasted anyone's time posting the question:confused:

Is it not ok to have a question about a play pop into one's mind and post it here for an answer/discussion?

I'm asking you what you've read in the rule book concerning the officials and their status. That will give you a lot of information to use to answer your question.

It's been answered.

(And, there's always a little bit of a conflict between "teach to fish" and "give a fish")

Why? That closes off angles you have to cover action out on the court and opens up your view of the area behind the thrower???

What?

What was unlcear?

When you stand in front of the play, you can't see as much in front of the play. It is sort of like staying on a close-down position as lead but covering a play in the corner (2-person, or 3-person but inside the arc). You can't see anything else but the corner and will not see when something else is coming that way (a screen, etc.) So, you move out to mirror the ball so that you have a good line for coverage of the ball but keeping your field of vision open to the rest of the court.

Moving onto the floor for a sideline throwin, while I have heard a few promoting it, only reduces how much of your field of vision is into the court and makes your primary sightline either looking OOB or not covering the thrower and the throwin plane.

By staying OOB you have a much better line of sight on both the throwin action AND the court at the same time. Why reduce the vision you have of the court?

I can't think of a reason I've ever been on the court when administering a throw-in.

I've never had an issue with it closing off angles. Only makes it easier.

If you are on the court, then how does the player throw the ball in that direction? What if the offense has an inbounds play where one of the players runs along the sideline?

I'm still waiting for a good reason to be on the court during a throw-in. :confused:

Some will do it when there's no pressure, and will be in proper position when the defense is actually in the play. I can't imagine Rich is ever in bounds when the defense is actively involved in playing the throw in.

Are we talking about sideline throw-ins or endline throw-ins?

Guess it doesn't really matter. I hate when I find myself creeping onto the court after a made basket. Bad habit I'm constantly working on breaking.

Backcourt, no pressure. Endline or sideline if it's deep enough.

And I agree.

Friendly Reminder ...
 

Double hijack ...

A reminder, if a player, when dribbling the basketball, touches an official who is standing out of bounds, that is not an out of bounds violation.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Billy:

And why would the dribbler not be out-of-bounds?

MTD, Sr.

Sideline, where I'm bouncing the ball when there's no pressure.

I've done pretty well staying off the court on the end line until the ball is advancing up the court.

Not geometrically possible.

7-1-1: A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any
object other than a player/person, on or outside a boundary.

7.1.1 SITUATION A: A1, while holding the ball inbounds near the sideline,
touches (a) player B1; (b) a photographer; (c) a coach; (d) an official, all of whom
are out of bounds. RULING: A1 is not out of bounds in (a), (b), (c) or (d). To be
out of bounds, A1 must touch the floor or some object on or outside a boundary
line. People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently
touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not
considered a violation.

DOH!!

MTD, Sr.

So.....the ball touching an official inbounds is same as touching the floor at that spot.......but touching a person who is out of bounds is not the same as touching the floor on that spot?

Silly to me, some of these rules are.


I wish I had a cool signature

If it was, then perhaps B could cause a violation by standing in the FC and using his one "hot stove touch" to contact A who was standing in the BC.

Or, if B was on the boundary line and touched A who was touching the ball ...

However, note that if A is OOB for a throw-in and reaches over the boundary line and contact B, it's a violation on A (per interp)

Key phrase here. If they are doing it to gain an advantage, then it is a violation. If the offense is falling out of bounds and puts their hands on the official to keep their balance and they stay inbounds.

Good point.

I can't tell if you're confused or just being sarcastic, so I'll make sure:

The ball touching an official is inbounds if the official is entirely inbounds, or out of bounds if any part of the official is touching on or outside a boundary. This much is true. But the ball handler, and thus the ball, is not out of bounds if said ball handler touches an official (or any other person) who is located on or outside a boundary.

Inbound pass hits referee OOB
 

Let me be clear about these things. Unless otherwise stated, I understand the rule. But as I have stated before, understanding and adjudicating it correctly do not preclude being discerning about a rule. To me, it sometimes seems there is a double talk taking place in basketball rules that I don't see in softball.

As in, touching the bleachers while inbounds with the ball makes you OOB but touching a cheerleader/official/cameraman does not? Seems contradictory to me.


I wish I had a cool signature

Is That You Yoda ???
 

Bark Is Worse Than His Bite ...
 

Player touching the police officer in the corner isn't out of bounds, but touching his K-9 police dog would be out of bounds.

:eek: dogs are people, too . . . :D

The lack of a clear standard here is a problem.
There isn't actually a rule which states that touching an OOB person is a violation. We would have no concrete rule basis for making such a call. We would have to fall back on 2-3 and the phrase at the beginning of the book about not permitting any player to gain an advantage not intended by the rules.
Plus, if one does make a call in this situation, then there is the issue of what penalty to enforce. Is it a violation? Is it an unsporting technical foul?

That was an awful interpretation. There is no justification for it. I recall that the NFHS actually stated that the thrower gained inbounds status by touching the defender, which is completely untrue.