Casebook play 9.2.2 Question.
 

So casebook play states....
Casebook 9.2.2: A1 scores a basket. After the ball goes through the net, B1 grabs it and makes a move toward the end line as though preparing to make a throw-in. However, B1 never legally steps out of bounds. B1 immediately passes the ball up the court to a fast-breaking teammate, who score a basket. RULING: Cancel Team B’s goal, throw-in violation on B1. The ball was at B1’s disposal after the made basket to make a throw-in. B1 must be out of bounds to make a legal throw-in. (7-4-3; 7-5-7).

So my question is for a situation if there was no made basket as in the above case. When do you whistle the ball dead and call the violation? After a 5 second count?

If there wasn't a made goal, an official is required to hand the ball to the thrower. He is going to be out of bounds before the official gives him the ball so this won't be a problem. If he steps inbounds prior to throwing the ball, it is a violation and a whistle at that point.

Sorry, what I meant to say is, what happens if B1 threw the ball to his/her teammate and team B brought the ball down the court but they were passing it around and no goal was scored by team B?

As soon as B1 throws the ball (and it's meant as a throw-in, not just tossing the ball to b2 to become the inbounder), it's a violation. The play never gets far enough fro B to pass it around in the FC.

Use your best judgment.

Did the player act as if he was throwing in the ball? If you said "yes" then you have a throw-in violation and you should blow the whistle and call it when it happens.

Did the player toss the ball to his teammate in an attempt for him to make the throw-in, only for that player to misunderstand and dribble down the court? If you said "yes" to this, then you would start a count as soon as you deem the ball was at their disposal for the throw-in. So you may have a 5-second count before they realize their mistake and run back to make the throw-in legally.

Now, there may be something else at play here that I'm not aware. So look out for other responses.

Either way, once it's clear B has no intention of making a legitimate throw-in, I'm calling the violation. If B1 is trying to get B2's attention, knowing they need to do it right, I'll just count either until I get to 5 or B1 gives up and just goes with it.

What does this have to do with the casebook play? If there wasn't a made goal it would've just been a rebound.

There were two made goals in the OP. The OP's question was a little vague, but he meant to ask what would happen if the second goal was never made and B was just passing/dribbling the ball around. Nevadaref assumed he meant what if A had never scored.

I read it the way Nevadaref did at first.

How is that? I assumed he meant the second shot as the first shot miss wouldn't make any sense for his question on when you call the violation. There is no violation on a miss because the player never went OOB for the throw-in.:confused:

Congratulations, you successfully parsed the vague question. Not everybody did. Now we are all on the same page. Move on.

The short answer is we get a lot of questions that have very basic answers, especially this time of year.

I'm going with a five second count. The player doesn't have to be out of bounds or even have the ball for us to start counting.

The one exception is the 3A varsity assigner who wants us to tell the players on this play and "correct" it for them. i.e. we get the ball and then pass it to them for a throw-in. The league is on the same page so I'm just going with whatever my assigner wants.

The key to the case play, IMO, is not the fact that B makes a basket. The point was to resolve a debate over when to call the violation, and it is to be called as soon as it's clear the new offensive team has no intention of making a correct throw in.

They added the piece about B making a basket in order to ensure we don't credit b with the score because we think it's too late to correct.

This play wsa discussed with some fervor many many years ago on this forum.

Some said "start the 5-second count." (That was my vote, iirc.)

Some said "immediate violation."

Some said "reset the play."

The next year (again, iirc), the NFHS came out with the interp that's in the case play -- immediate violation. So, that's how I'll call it if it ever comes up in one of my games.

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.

I completely understand your opinion, however I also understand the position of others. The NFHS, well they do write the rules and indicate how said rules will be enforced and interpreted, does not pay my bills. I, as an official, need to balance doing things according to what is right, and doing things according to the way the governing body wants things called. I personally, would not be enforcing things the way the NFHS wants if it were to cost me hundreds or thousands of dollars, and was a non-safety related issue. Now if it were a safety issue, then I would be making a much bigger issue.

As with all things in life, there are battles you choose to fight, and battles you let the other side win. Very few wars have ever concluded with one side winning every battle. The war is getting the games called in the best manner possible. This battle may not be something worth fighting in the short term, but is something to discuss in the long term.

I'm with you except that you're confused as to who ultimately gets to set the rules.

The NFHS sets the model rules, but the teams playing the game hire the referees and they get to set the rules. For the most part, they tell us to use the NFHS rules, but when they say otherwise (for example, OHSAA saying we are not to use the team control signal) we enforce the rules of the competition as set by the organizing association.

So if a league says that want this situation dealt in this way, you are ethically obligated to either deal with it this way or turn down the assignment. What the NFHS wants really doesn't enter into it.

Making this a moral issue is a bit....

So are you calling every travel when officiating for a disabled school?

or not following...

"Member associations of the NFHS independently make decisions regarding compliance with or modification of these playing rules for the student-athletes in their respective states."

Or the whole being cooperative with different associations.

I can respect your take on that matter, but that's for you, and by no means a moral values issues on an individual basis.

There's almost always more to be said, but turning this into some sort of ethical issue is over the top, Mark. Calling an official unethical because he or she follows the wishes of those who set the procedures and policies for the area is over the top and inappropriate.

The phrase "lighten up, Francis" comes to mind.

What we do is officiate a game. I'm as serious about it as one should be in this endeavor, but I'm not curing cancer.

+1. I had to double check that I was on a basketball officiating forum, discussing high school rules, nonetheless, after reading Mark's comment.