Throw-In Situation

[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.

[BigCat]

I think I could make an argument using ball location rules that it is a violation on A1 if anybody inbounds touches the ball while A1 holds it over plane.

Ex. Player A2 inbounds touches ball while A1 has it over plane. Ball location rule says ball is located where player in contact with it. here, A2 is inbounds. A1 is also in contact with it out of bounds. He has caused it to be out of bounds. Of course, the case play above tells us that is not the rule. When B grabs it, it's a held ball not violation on A.

I think we're left with the fact that when A2 touches the ball while A1 has it over the plane there's no violation because the throw in didn't end. Doesn't seem right but it's what we are left with imo without another case play.

This area is goofed up. The case play in rule 9 says it is a violation if A1 reaches out and touches another player on the court. Says that touching gives him inbounds status. We know if A1 is inbounds with the ball and touches another player who's out of bounds it does not make A1 out of bounds. Not sure why the opposite is true in the case play....


9.2.5B. See also 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 sit B

[deecee]

The case play only provides the exception for an opponent.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I think I could make an argument using ball location rules that it is a violation on A1 if anybody inbounds touches the ball while A1 holds it over plane.

Ex. Player A2 inbounds touches ball while A1 has it over plane. Ball location rule says ball is located where player in contact with it. here, A2 is inbounds. A1 is also in contact with it out of bounds. He has caused it to be out of bounds. Of course, the case play above tells us that is not the rule. When B grabs it, it's a held ball not violation on A.

I think we're left with the fact that when A2 touches the ball while A1 has it over the plane there's no violation because the throw in didn't end. Doesn't seem right but it's what we are left with imo without another case play.

This area is goofed up. The case play in rule 9 says it is a violation if A1 reaches out and touches another player on the court. Says that touching gives him inbounds status. We know if A1 is inbounds with the ball and touches another player who's out of bounds it does not make A1 out of bounds. Not sure why the opposite is true in the case play....


9.2.5B. See also 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 sit B

That ruling and case play explanation is just wrong. Several of us on here said so when it first came out as an interpretation. Too bad that it made it into the book and is still with us.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The case play in rule 9 says it is a violation if A1 reaches out and touches another player on the court. Says that touching gives him inbounds status. We know if A1 is inbounds with the ball and touches another player who's out of bounds it does not make A1 out of bounds. Not sure why the opposite is true in the case play....

Be that as it may, the case play plainly states that this is a violation. The throw-in is a unique situation.

And having said all that, if this is a violation, the teammate touching the ball also seems to be a violation to me.

And if the above doesn't do it for you, perhaps the touch by the teammate could also be considered carrying the ball onto the court.