Throw-In Situation

[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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Yeah, if I were the rule maker I'd say A1 violates if he holds ball over plane and anyone touches it. It isn't that hard for an inbounder to keep it from happening and there's some basis in ball/player location rules for it to be a violation. Saying touching an inbound player with a hand gives player inbound status just isn't right.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Yeah, if I were the rule maker I'd say A1 violates if he holds ball over plane and anyone touches it. It isn't that hard for an inbounder to keep it from happening and there's some basis in ball/player location rules for it to be a violation. Saying touching an inbound player with a hand gives player inbound status just isn't right.

Except that its legal for a defensive player to knock the ball out of the hands of the thrower if the ball is held across the plane.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Except that its legal for a defensive player to knock the ball out of the hands of the thrower if the ball is held across the plane.

Yes, I know...What I have said is that if they were basing these plays on the ball location rules it would be a violation on the thrower in, A1, if anybody touched the ball while he was holding it over the plane. A1 is out of bounds. Not only legal for B to grab the ball or hit it but also it is a violation on A1.

I know that's not the rule, said so above and mentioned the rule 6 case play. It's a held ball when B grabs it, not a violation on A1. They are not basing these plays on ball location rules. They are using the throw in has not ended stuff...thx

[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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

It does "seem" like it would be a violation when A2 touches it but...not everything is as it seems. What rule is being violated when A2 touches the ball being held over the plane by A1? A1 is holding the ball. He doesn't let go or step onto the court. It wouldnt surprise me if the NFHS would say at some point that it is a violation but I don't see anything yet that does. Frankly, it would make more sense to me to say it's a violation on A1 when A2 touches it than saying A1 gains inbounds status by touching another player. That's out of left field. But you are right. It's there and has been there. It's the law until overturned...

[BillyMac]

9.2.5 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being
guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out
and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance.
RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds
until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she
has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul shall
be called. (9-2-10 Note)