Would you make this call? Why or why not?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

I would have called this most likely, but I'm open to discussion on it. Assuming there's no pressure, it's not that hard to do this right. In fact, rolling is the least effective means as it forces the dribbler to bend over and pick it up before dribbling.

Zero pressure in the BC. Coach was asking me a quick question at the time and I didn't see what happened(I was the C). Coach went nuts after the violation call so we talked about it after the game.

Seemed like an interesting play to me.

I think rolling the ball isn't a good idea pretty much ever, especially after a TO.

[bob jenkins]

A case can be made (and I know there are those who will argue against it), that this is one of the examples where "advantage" comes into play on a violation. (And, I am aware of the case play where the inbounder steps inbounds and it says to call the violation regardless.)

For example, I had a play just the other day where the defense was pressing the inbounder and she bounce-passed the ball across the lane line to beat the pressure. but, the ball hit OOB. Easy violation call.

In the OP, as I read it though, no pressure -- so no advantage gained. I can see being a lot less likely to call it.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A case can be made (and I know there are those who will argue against it), that this is one of the examples where "advantage" comes into play on a violation. (And, I am aware of the case play where the inbounder steps inbounds and it says to call the violation regardless.)

For example, I had a play just the other day where the defense was pressing the inbounder and she bounce-passed the ball across the lane line to beat the pressure. but, the ball hit OOB. Easy violation call.

In the OP, as I read it though, no pressure -- so no advantage gained. I can see being a lot less likely to call it.

I can't disagree with this. No advantage gained, so if somebody went without the violation, I don't see it as something to get fired up about.

[Eastshire]

I'm not going to cut hairs too fine when there's no pressure, but 2+ feet of OOB rolling is a bit more than a hair. Sometimes you can't save players from stupid.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm not going to cut hairs too fine when there's no pressure, but 2+ feet of OOB rolling is a bit more than a hair. Sometimes you can't save players from stupid.

This is probably why I'd call it. If it gets released right on or near the line, I'm probably not going to see it well enough to call it. 2.5 feet, however, is quite a bit. It really depends on how close it is.

And I'm sorry, but a coach really doesn't get to go off on what is a correct call, regardless of philosophy.

Technically, there's no legal way to roll the ball out of a throw in.

[deecee]

I don't understand why one would not call this? If the ball is released by the thrower in and it contacts the OOB side of the court first this should be a violation. Advantage or not. The ball is either OOB or it isn't. Do you also not call back court violations if the defender isn't pressing the ball/player?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't understand why one would not call this? If the ball is released by the thrower in and it contacts the OOB side of the court first this should be a violation. Advantage or not. The ball is either OOB or it isn't. Do you also not call back court violations if the defender isn't pressing the ball/player?

Do you call three seconds if a player has their toe in the key while their guard is dribbling two inches within the front court? Yes, the rules are there, but I was just curious what others thought about it. You made it clear in your first post what you thought. No reason to reiterate you don't agree with someone maybe passing on it.

I thought it was a good call, and one I may have missed like Jrut said happened in his case. I've never seen it before so why not see what other officials would've done.

I get it. You would've called it a violation.

[BryanV21]

I don't see the problem calling this violation (it IS the rule), however I don't see a problem ignoring it assuming it isn't obvious and doesn't give the violating team an unfair advantage.

It's like ignoring a three-second violation since the player was in the lane for 3.5 seconds.

Some see it as game management.

[wildcatter]

I would absolutely call it - if it was clear to me. On violations that tend to be rarer like that one, I'm inclined to be close to 100% sure a) saw it right and b) interpreted the rule correctly (if it's a weird play) before calling it. To be fair, an issue that comes up with this is like what JRut mentioned - sometimes my brain is still processing "WTF" and by the time it registers, it would be a really late whistle (had a weird BC violation similar to a video someone posted about a week ago where I ate my whistle). I chalk some of that up to (my lack of) experience.

Just curious - without going looking for them, I try to call every major violation that I see (e.g. traveling, double dribble, carry, even 10-second FT), and don't even think of advantage/disadvantage (as opposed to fouls). But someone brought it up earlier - are there violations that you sometimes let go?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is probably why I'd call it. If it gets released right on or near the line, I'm probably not going to see it well enough to call it. 2.5 feet, however, is quite a bit. It really depends on how close it is.

And I'm sorry, but a coach really doesn't get to go off on what is a correct call, regardless of philosophy.

Technically, there's no legal way to roll the ball out of a throw in.

This is actually the main reason I wanted to discuss the play. The coach told me he called a violation for rolling the ball in-bounds and I told him rolling the ball is a pass. I asked the other official about the play and he said what most people are imagining the play to be. I was about to ask when did the ball leave her hand and then realized if the ball rolled and never bounced it's basically a violation no matter what.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm not going to cut hairs too fine when there's no pressure, but 2+ feet of OOB rolling is a bit more than a hair. Sometimes you can't save players from stupid.

Great point!

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by SD Referee

I can't disagree with this. No advantage gained, so if somebody went without the violation, I don't see it as something to get fired up about.

In a close game, if the opposing coach knows the rule, he'll see it as something to be fired up about if it's no called.

Pretty untenable position to defend.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

In a close game, if the opposing coach knows the rule, he'll see it as something to be fired up about if it's no called.

Pretty untenable position to defend.

Agreed. Either way you go is going to unpopular with someone. If you call it as defined, you'll at least make the right person unhappy.

[BatteryPowered]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

In a close game, if the opposing coach knows the rule, he'll see it as something to be fired up about if it's no called.

Pretty untenable position to defend.

Exactly. Just like earlier this year my partner called a 10 sec violation of a FT shooter. He said afterwards he felt strange making the call and it was the first time in a 20+ year career that he got to 10. However, if someone from the team is counting with you using your visible count how do you explain NOT making the call.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

In a close game, if the opposing coach knows the rule, he'll see it as something to be fired up about if it's no called.

Pretty untenable position to defend.

If it was truly 30 inches of rolling length, then you are probably right about needing to call it.