I don't see why it is a stretch. Clearly says ball located where player is when he touches it. It may be, I suppose...but I wouldn't mind it too much because A1 is being a knucklehead touching ball in A2 hands OOB

9.2.2 B: The throw-in by A1 is touched or caught by A2 whose hand is on the out of bounds side of the throw-in boundary plane.

ruling: violation

It doesn't say the thrown ball. It says the throw-in. A1 holding the ball is part of the throw-in.

Agree.

The 2 rules that the case play references does say thrown ball.

9-2-3. The thrown ball shall not be touched by a teammate of the thrower while the ball is on the out of bounds side of the throw in boundary line plane except as in 7-5-7

9-2-6. The thrown ball shall not touch the thrower in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

One could reasonably interpret that "the throw in" means a ball in flight.

Count me in the group that believes this is not a violation. Ball not thrown = throw-in has not ended. And you can't argue that the throw-in ended with a violation because there's nothing in 7-6 nor 9-2 the says what happens in the OP is a violation…specified or implied.

The arguments from those saying this has to do with ball location, or somehow equates to a thrown ball or a hand-off, are not supported by rule. Basically I see many posters saying they'd call a violation because A2 was a knucklehead. That's not sufficient justification.

I know that I can deontologically explain my no-call to a coach a lot more easily than I could a violation in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the use of big words, and very accurate big words!

Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules.

I believe the mere touching of the ball is not a violation, but if possession is changed between teammates while the ball is on the outside of the out-of-bounds line then it is a violation.

What about this?

9-2-11
"No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins."

7-1-1
"A player is out of bounds when he/she touches the floor, or any object other than a player/person, on or outside a boundary."

Would a teammate touching the ball in this case cause him to be OOB, leading to a violation?

[QUOTE=crosscountry55;99870

The arguments from those saying this has to do with ball location, are not supported by rule. Basically I see many posters saying they'd call a violation because A2 was a knucklehead. That's not sufficient justification.

I know that I can deontologically explain my no-call to a coach a lot more easily than I could a violation in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

I think ball location rule makes perfect sense. It is in rule. Inbounds player reaches over and touches ball. Ball located where he is and still OOB.

We have the goofy play of thrower reaching over and touching the inbounds player. Violation. This action makes more sense as violation than that.

And if there is doubt, I will call something on the knucklehead every time or not call it to bail a knucklehead out.

Finally, if you use words like deont.......not sure anybody understand your explanation. :)

The rule certainly does say that. Case plays often expand rule. Let me ask this, if we have a rule saying throw in teammate can't touch it on OOB side of plane, why would we try to declare it is ok to reach through and touch it in teammates hands? In other words, why are we trying so hard to say this isn't a violation when we have something to hang our hat on? And again, there's no reason for teammate to reach across and touch ball in throwers hands.

And again, I think the ball location rule stuff makes sense also.

I would call a violation every time. I guess I'd clarify that and say I'd have to see what it looked like. I don't want to call it so if contact is brief I pass. Here, other player actually tried to take it. Violation.