Throw-In Situation

[bas2456]

A1: Yes, as soon as A2 touches it. The inbounder must release the ball on a pass directly on to the court (7-6-2).

A2: Throw in for Team B, and the arrow switches over to B as well, as the AP throw in ended when Team A violated.

[Nevadaref]

If A1 never lets go of the ball, then no throw-in pass or hand-off has occurred. Therefore, there is no violation.
(BktBallRef and I debated this topic quite extensively several years ago on this forum.)
If B1 is able to hang onto the ball along with A1, then a heldball should be called.

[bas2456]

What's the correct answer???

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bas2456

What's the correct answer???

I don't know. That's why I asked.

Nevada's explanation makes more sense, i.e. what's to say A1 couldn't have theoretically pulled the ball back and tried again to make a legal throw-in pass before B1 came in and caused the held ball?

I (U, 2p crew) was actually thinking held ball at the time, and to be perfectly honest it was because that was the rule I knew for sure how to adjudicate. In retrospect, I was accidentally correct. However, R and I got together because it was an unusual whistle, R listened to my description of the play, and opted for throw-in violation. I'm not 100% sure he understood what I was trying to explain, and then it got to that point where it was better to make a decision and move on rather than have a subtle argument on the court. So we went with the TI violation and Team A lost the arrow.

No big deal in the grand scheme. I learned something. Figured it would be a good discussion for the forum.

[DrPete]

Originally Posted by bas2456

What's the correct answer???

SnipperBBB already answered correctly, with a quote right out of the case book.

Rule: 6.4.5


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)

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by DrPete

SnipperBBB already answered correctly, with a quote right out of the case book.



Rule: 6.4.5





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)

That case play doesn't address the touch by A2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bas2456

That case play doesn't address the touch by A2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nor does anything else.

You need to decide whether the touch by A2 meets the criteria of a throw-in violation as listed. Nevada gave you his opinion.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Nor does anything else.

You need to decide whether the touch by A2 meets the criteria of a throw-in violation as listed. Nevada gave you his opinion.

I don't see how a player holding the ball for an inbounds holds the ball over the line and a teammate touches it and we DON'T have a violation.

I think the common sense answer is that it would be a violation and the caseplay was written allowing the defender to steal or tie up the ball since any other time there are 2 players holding a ball and one of them is OOB the ball is OOB on that player. I think they didn't want that outcome since the player IS ALREADY OOB and they wanted to reward good defense.

The part that is asinine IMO is that if said defender makes contact with a player that has the ball across the plane the foul is an IPF. Seems very contrarian to me.