Throw-In Situation
 

AP throw-in, backcourt endline.

A1 has the ball at disposal for the throw-in. Nearby, B1 is defending A2 who is trying to get in position to receive the throw-in pass from A1. Eventually, A2 fakes out her defender and gets close enough that A1 reaches out over the plane with the ball and starts to hand it to A2. However, A2 never grabs or possesses the ball. She comes close, but ultimately the ball rolled partially up her fingertips at which point B1 arrives and is able to get a firm grip on the ball while A1 is still holding it out over the plane.

Q1: Does the ball become dead at any point here, and if so, when/why?

Q2: Assuming there's a whistle and ruling of some sort, what happens next?

Bonus points for defense of answer with rule citation.

I don't think there's any violation for the mere touching by A2 if the ball is past the plane. The touching by B1results in a held ball

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)

ART. 5

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

The case play only provides the exception for an opponent.

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.

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.