Throw In

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Citation please.

Gave it some time ago.

Rule 7-6-5 says...

Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if opponents desire one of those positions. The 3-foot restraining line is sometimes the temporary boundary line in 1-2-2.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Gave it some time ago. Rule 7-6-5

1) Your response was never posted.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...-question.html

2) You posted that a defender was entitled to the spot in front of the throwin player. Your citation posted today (7-6-5: Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if opponents desire one of those positions) does not restrict a single offensive player from standing in the spot in front of the throwin player.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the defense of the throw-in has the right to stand next to the thrower as well. That rule kind of addresses that as well. It is the only time they have a right a specific space on the floor if they did not get there first.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) Your response was never posted.

2) The thread was in regard to players standing perpendicular to the boundary line, to which you posted that a defender was entitled to the spot in front of the throwin player.

Yes, the opponents cannot block the position of the defenders close to the thrower. They cannot stack up and prevent them from standing 3 feet from the thrower. If all you are debating is the actual language of "standing next to" but that is basically what the rule allows if they choose to be there. There even used to be an example in the old comic book that stated this as well with an illustration.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the opponents cannot block the position of the defenders close to the thrower.

Citation please, especially in the case of a single offensive player standing in that closest to the thrower spot, or in the case of a stack of offensive players standing perpendicular to the boundary line, with an offensive player standing in that closest to the thrower spot.

No way that this is illegal. We can't tell the offensive player standing in that closest to the thrower spot to get out of that spot in either of situations described above.

Parallel stack within three feet of the boundary? Sure, but not in the two situations described above.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the defense of the throw-in has the right to stand next to the thrower as well. That rule kind of addresses that as well. It is the only time they have a right a specific space on the floor if they did not get there first.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Citation please, especially in the case of a single offensive player standing in that closest to the thrower spot, or in the case of a stack of offensive players standing perpendicular to the boundary line, with an offensive player standing in that closest to the thrower spot.

No way that this is illegal.

I did not say it was illegal, I said that the defender has a right to a spot next to the sideline where the throw-in takes place. Never said they had to be there under all circumstances.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree that they can block the opponent standing there. But if you want to go with that, go with that. Rule seems clear to me and how it was interpreted some time ago.

Your interpretation from some time ago may be difficult to find, so I'll just settle on the rule reference as it exists in the NFHS Rulebook today.

Citation please.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... that the defender has a right to a spot next to the sideline where the throw-in takes place.

Other than a parallel stack (that we agree upon), rule reference please for other circumstances (single player, perpendicular stack)?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Your interpretation from some time ago may be difficult to find, so I'll just settle on the rule reference as it exists in the NFHS Rulebook today.

Citation please.

Billy,

I stand by my words and my position. If you are struggling, that is on you. I am not working with you anyway, and this is also hardly ever a single issue as teams never line up in a way to prevent a team from standing in a place. Usually the only thing you have to worry about are guys pushing their way into "stack" formations that usually have nothing to do with 3 feet to the sideline.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I stand by my words and my position.

NFHS Play 1: A1 has a throwin on the sideline. Lined up parallel to the sideline, within three feet of the sideline, are, in order, left to right, A2, B2, A3, B3, A4, and B4. A3, who got there first, happens to be directly in front of inbounder A1. Before the official puts the ball at the disposal of inbounder A1, B3 requests to move such that he is directly in front of inbounder A1. The official grants the request because "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". Is the official correct?

NFHS Play 2: A1 has a throwin on the sideline. Lined up perpendicular to the sideline are A2, B2, A3, B3, A4, and B4 (listed nearest to the sideline to farthest from the sideline). A2, who got there first, happens to be directly in front of inbounder A1. Before the official puts the ball at the disposal of inbounder A1, B2 requests to move such that he is directly in front of inbounder A1. The official grants the request because "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". Is the official correct?

NFHS Play 3: A1 has a throwin on the sideline. A2, who got there first, happens to be directly in front of inbounder A1. Before the official puts the ball at the disposal of inbounder A1, B2 requests to move such that he is directly in front of inbounder A1. The official grants the request because "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". Is the official correct?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I stand by my words and my position.

Friday night I had a partner who (as described to me after the game, because, as the lead, I didn't see the play) from the trail position observed a try bounce high off the rim and directly over the rectangular backboard, not touching any supports, falling in bounds on the court behind the backboard. The players didn't immediately go after the ball (because they thought it went out of bounds when it went over the rectangular backboard), and then it bounced, again, untouched, out of bounds, and I made my out of bounds call (my line). Not only did the players act odd (not going for the ball), but the coach questioned my partner.

After the game, when questioned by me about the play, he described the play to me (as I repeated above) and stated, unequivocally, the because the ball landed inbounds after going over the rectangular backboard, that going over the rectangular backboard was not a violation, but, rather, play on.

He also stood by his words and his position, but he was still wrong, dead wrong.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

Here is the thing. I really do not give a damn what you think. I do not work in a place were people look like an old man wearing belts as an official. I do not work in a place where every varsity game is 2 person. And I usually respect people that can work the post season. So yes, I am going to stick by my words. See how that works?

So you can post pictures that have nothing to do with conversations we are actually having or try to tell everyone about some interpretation you feel it should be, at the end of the day the same things will remain the same. I am not trying to get your approval on anything officiating. That is how it works in my little corner of the state of Illinois.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I really do not give a damn what you think.

This is not a judgment call, so it really doesn't matter what I think, or what you think. What matters is what is correct, and you are wrong. Why are you wrong? Because you have not cited a single rule, casebook play, or interpretation, that states that "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". It not in the rulebook. It's not in the casebook. It's not in any interpretation that I can find.

By sticking to your position in this situation, you are confusing any new officials who may be reading your posts (only in this specific situation, certainly not in all of your otherwise spot-on posts) on the Forum.

There is no rule that states that "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". Period. Prove me wrong. Just show me one citation defending your position. Just one.

You sticking to your position on this matter is exactly like my partner from two nights ago. A veteran official, a member of our local training committee, wearing beltless slacks, who has worked more state finals than any official I know, who also works a Division I college schedule, insisting that because the ball landed inbounds after going over the rectangular backboard, that going over the rectangular backboard was not a violation. He is a much better official than me, as are you, but you are both wrong in these singular matters.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... some interpretation you feel it should be

It's not my feeling about some interpretation, it's the lack of a rule, casebook play, or interpretation, that states that "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is not a judgment call, so it really doesn't matter what I think, or what you think.

I was not asking what kind of call it was. You even posted the play in another thread that stands by my position. Ironic and funny at the same time.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You even posted the play in another thread that stands by my position.

No way. Prove it. I've known that you've been wrong about this situation since you stated it a few months ago. I would never agree with you on this specific matter because you are wrong. There is no rule, casebook play, or interpretation, that states that "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". Period.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No way. Prove it. I've known that you've been wrong about this situation since you stated it a few months ago. I would never agree with you on this specific matter because you are wrong. There is no rule, casebook play, or interpretation, that states that "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". Period.

Well keep looking like you did on this topic.

Peace