Throw-In Situation

[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

[Adam]

This really isn't an exception, though, since if a ball is being touched by someone with IB and someone with OOB status, OOB trumps. So by ball location rules, the ball still has OOB status if B1 touches the ball when A1 reaches it across. What rule has A1 violated again?

I'm with Nevada, the "note" in the rules that says it's a violation on the thrower if he touches an inbounds player is stupid. Ball location is not affected if a dribbler makes contact with bench personnel or a sub with OOB status, why should this be any different?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

Ball location is not affected if a dribbler makes contact with bench personnel or a sub with OOB status, why should this be any different?

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Huh? Maybe I'm not understanding, but if a dribbler touches a person who is OOB (bench personnel, sub, security guard), the dribbler is OOB.

If the dribbler touches an object (score table, bleacher) then the dribbler is not OOB.

Doh, I may have this backwards, and I'm at everyone's mercy until I get home tonight.

I thought touching objects gave the player OOB status and touching persons did not.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Doh, I may have this backwards, and I'm at everyone's mercy until I get home tonight.

I thought touching objects gave the player OOB status and touching persons did not.

7.1.1 A
SITUATION: A1 while holding the ball inbounds near the sideline, touches, (a) player; (b) a photographer; (c) a coach; (d) an official, all of whom are out of bounds.

RULING: A1 is not out of bounds, A1 must touch the floor or some objects on our outside a boundary line. People are not considered to be objects and play continues. Inadvertently touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining and advantage, is not considered a violation.

The bold part I have a question about. What if A1 is on the sideline and looses their balance and reaches across the line and pushes on a coach to keep balance and not fall out of bounds. Violation? I think since this case play says inadvertently, and advantage, a violation would be right.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Huh? Maybe I'm not understanding, but if a dribbler touches a person who is OOB (bench personnel, sub, security guard), the dribbler is OOB.

If the dribbler touches an object (score table, bleacher) then the dribbler is not OOB.

Other way around. Touching a person out of bounds is ok. touching an object is OOB. 7-1

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Other way around. Touching a person out of bounds is ok. touching an object is OOB. 7-1

Yes, that's what I typed. Don't know why it showed up the other way around on the list.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, that's what I typed. Don't know why it showed up the other way around on the list.

Been there, done that…