Would you make this call? Why or why not?

[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.

[VaTerp]

I'm apparently in the minority here but I don't see myself calling this. The OP says the inbounder was about 30 inches behind the OOB line. Presuming he leans forward to roll the ball, it doesn't necessarily mean he rolled it the entire 2.5 feet.

I just don't see this as an advantage gained not intended by rule though I could be convinced otherwise.

Does anyone have citation for the specific casebook play?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'm apparently in the minority here but I don't see myself calling this. The OP says the inbounder was about 30 inches behind the OOB line. Presuming he leans forward to roll the ball, it doesn't necessarily mean he rolled it the entire 2.5 feet.

I was thinking about this, too. Like I said, if the ball is released close enough to the line that I don't notice it's exactly location in reference to the line, I'll probably not call it.

Then again, there really is no legal way to roll the ball. It's either going to start from OOB or the thrower will be touching the ball to the floor IB while holding it. Either is a violation.

Is it worth getting? Probably ought to check local listings to be sure, but for me it's not too different from 3 seconds. If the violation happens in the midst of defenders, I'm likely to be more particular about it. If it happens without defenders around, but is still pretty egregious, I'll probably get it.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Adam

If the violation happens in the midst of defenders, I'm likely to be more particular about it. If it happens without defenders around, but is still pretty egregious, I'll probably get it.

Rolling the ball from OOB likely would never happen if the defense was pressing. It would be too risky. It seems to only happen in my experience when the only people in the backcourt are the kid rolling the ball, the kid receiving it, and me. I am probably not calling this...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Then again, there really is no legal way to roll the ball. It's either going to start from OOB or the thrower will be touching the ball to the floor IB while holding it. Either is a violation.

I'm not picturing this the same way. I think it is possible to do both...roll it and not be touching it when the ball touches inbounds. The player just had to release it 1" off the floor. It may "bounce" a little, but I still consider that a roll because that it what it will be doing almost immediately.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'm apparently in the minority here but I don't see myself calling this. The OP says the inbounder was about 30 inches behind the OOB line. Presuming he leans forward to roll the ball, it doesn't necessarily mean he rolled it the entire 2.5 feet.

I just don't see this as an advantage gained not intended by rule though I could be convinced otherwise.

Does anyone have citation for the specific casebook play?

9.2.5 Situation A

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.

Sorry to Adam. I did misunderstand his post. I should have quoted this one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry to Adam. I did misunderstand his post. I should have quoted this one.

I appreciate it, thanks.

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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?

Check local listings to be certain, but many consider "carry", "3 seconds", and maybe a few others in the context of either advantage or egregiousness. If the kid camps in the lane for 10 seconds, get it even if no one is guarding him (although most areas would prefer you try to talk this kid out of the lane first). Some areas, however, want you to call these by the letter. Do what's expected, because you don't want to be the only guy making these calls.

10 second FT violations should be rare. There's a reason it went viral on Youtube when they called it in the NBA. We all count very slow, and still tend to get to 12 or so before we consider calling it. If I ever have to make this call I will, but I'll be the first official I know personally who's ever made it.

As it is, I'm the only one I know who's called the flopping T, so I'm not worried either way.

[wildcatter]

Originally Posted by Adam

Check local listings to be certain, but many consider "carry", "3 seconds", and maybe a few others in the context of either advantage or egregiousness. If the kid camps in the lane for 10 seconds, get it even if no one is guarding him (although most areas would prefer you try to talk this kid out of the lane first). Some areas, however, want you to call these by the letter. Do what's expected, because you don't want to be the only guy making these calls.

10 second FT violations should be rare. There's a reason it went viral on Youtube when they called it in the NBA. We all count very slow, and still tend to get to 12 or so before we consider calling it. If I ever have to make this call I will, but I'll be the first official I know personally who's ever made it.

As it is, I'm the only one I know who's called the flopping T, so I'm not worried either way.

Thanks

Can I ask what made you call the flopping T? Was it egregious or a player safety issue?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wildcatter

Thanks

Can I ask what made you call the flopping T? Was it egregious or a player safety issue?

It was egregious. 5th or 6th grade YMCA (been a few years).

Player falls back without any contact (plenty of space between him and his opponent). I warn him, warn his coach, and we play on.

Shortly after that, he's preparing to defend the PG who is coming across the division line. Just as the PG gets within closely guarded distance, this kid falls backward and slides about six feet.

I really had no choice at that point.