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.

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

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?

Nothing to see here. Move along.

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.

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

I think the second that A2 touches the ball while still in the hands of the A1, we have a throw in violation. The ball must be passed in on a throw in.

4.42.4.....The throw in count ends when the ball is released by the thrower so the passed ball goes directly into the court.

9.2.2.......The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

Since this is a throw in violation on the offense, team B will get the ball and the arrow will be switched to team B.

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

What's the rule violated here?

A1 hasn't released the pass, so the pass isn't illegal.
A1 hasn't handed it off, so that's not the violation.

The ball hasn't gained IB status without a pass, so that's not the violation.

I would view this as a handoff. The second it left A1's hands and rolled up the fingertips of A2 the ball has been handed off.

In the OP the ball never left A1's control

Been there, done that…:)

The argument could be made----A ball is located where a player is in contact with it. Ball is OOB when A1 has it. When inbounds player touches it it is also inbounds. The touch by the inbounds player changes the situation. Since A1 is out of bounds still. violation.

We know that isn't the rule. if it was it would be a violation on A1 when B grabbed the ball. Case play says it is a held ball.

I think you are right that even though an inbounds player touched the ball while it was over the plane, the status of it never changes. If A1 holds onto the ball it is like any other throw in that isn't touched by an inbounds player.

My thought is that if you have to stretch a rule so thin in order to make a call, it's probably best not to make the call.

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...

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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)