So much easier, for me, to just start the five second count. I don't want to call a violation because one player is screwing up. A1 passes to A2 who then runs out of bounds to pass it in telling A1 they messed up. Or A1 passes it to A2 and A3 runs over to say hey you need to get out of bounds before throwing it in. I can imagine problems with blowing a whistle judging intent. I've never had or seen anything go wrong with starting the five second count and then calling a violation if the team doesn't fix it.

I'd wait and see where A2 goes with it once he receives the pass. A3 won't get the chance to fix it.

The NFHS seems (to me) to have made it clear they just want us to call the violation rather than wait 5 seconds for the inevitable.

Your way isn't bad, unless B is running a press. What if A2 travels or double dribbles? Everyone is going to wonder why you didn't call that only to call a throw-in violation 3-4 seconds later. I think it avoids confusion.

If A1 steps towards OOB, but never makes it before throwing up court, would you just keep counting to 5? If B2 fouls A2 going up for a shot while you're at 4 in your count?

Too many odd variables that get avoided if you just call the violation when it's clear they aren't going to do it right. No need to judge intent or read minds, it's pretty clear from their actions.

I believe the NF used to take a stance on both continuing a 5 second count or calling a violation immediately (It was in the Guidebook they put out). I would only call the violation immediately. I am sure someone will look this up or find it somewhere, since people love to live on what was posted 10 years ago as gospel.

Peace

Nothing wrong with starting the count. An older case book play stated that once it became obvious that the offense would not be able to complete a legal throw-in that the violation is to be called.

No you don't. You do the correct thing and tell your assigner that the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee is very clear as to how this play is to be handled.

MTD, Sr.

Yeah, I lied, mostly. I'm always starting a five second count, but not necessarily finishing it. There's been times where I've blown a play dead before finishing my count. Maybe a better way to put it is I'm not blowing a violation just because A1 doesn't step OOB before throwing the ball in.

Correct thing for who? The league would go right on doing what it's doing. I on the other hand would lose $120 nights and 3A votes.

I always start the 5-second count as soon as the ball is at the team's disposal for throw-in, but as Adam said, will also whistle the violation as soon as it's clear they aren't going to make a legal throw-in.

Sorry, Mark. We all have to answer to the people who assign us games. This is no exception. While you could certainly bring the play to the assigner's attention, if he's not convinced, you need to call it his way if you want games.

No one here gets games from the NFHS.

That would be incorrect....both going with the 5 count AND correcting the players.

The entire point of the case play is that it is a violation as soon as the team moves up the court bypassing the throwin for failing to execute the throwin from OOB.

The 2nd goal in the case is just a distraction.

...and if B steals a pass and scores during your 5-second count?

By the looks of things I was wrong to say to start a 5-second count.

Oh well... not my first mistake, and not my last.

Calling a violation. My original posts were wrong, but when I posted them I meant I'm not calling a violation if A1 and A2 are alone in their BC. I'm giving A2 a moment to notice if A1 didn't legally make a throw-in.

I think that's fair, but A2 needs to react pretty fast to avoid the violation.

Dad has stated that he officiates in a H.S. league in which the league assigner has instructed the officials to not follow the NFHS Rules and Casebook Plays with respect to the situation that we are discussing. I took the position that officials are ethically and professionally obligated to conduct the game per the rules. Some posters have taken me to task because I advocated doing the correct thing rather than doing what the assigner wanted.

We are professionals and our code of ethics requires to apply the rules and casebook plays correctly, and to knowingly do otherwise is unethical conduct.

I have nothing further to say because there is nothing else that anybody can say.

MTD, Sr.