Throw In
 

Team A is coming off a time out and has a thrown in under their own basket. They get out of their huddle first and line up in a I formation right in front of the thrower very tight together. Team B now comes on the court and wants to get a player in between each player of Team A. IS Team B entitled to be allowed in between or since Team A is already lined up can they just stay in that formation? IF anyone knows of a rule please let me know, i cant find anything besides around the jump ball area. Thanks

This only applies if they are parallel to the boundary line and they 3 feet or less from the line

Perpendicular or parallel to the end line? Rule 7.6.5 should have your answer.

ART. 5 . . . Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet
of the boundary line if an opponent desires one of the positions. The 3-foot restraining line is
sometimes the temporary boundary line as in 1-2-2.

It's a common misconception that B should be allowed in.

What only applies? What is the answer?

No, the defense is not allowed a spot in between.

Reread the rule already posted - "Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if an opponent desires one of the positions" only applies when the line is parallel to the boundary line they are throwing in from.

If they are lined up perpendicular to the throw-in boundary, there is no rule saying they are allowed a spot between them.

"B is allowed in" only applies if the positions are parallel to the boundary line.

The answer is in post 3.

Thank you everyone. Great stuff.

I feel dirty having helped a Yankees fan.

lmao

For the first time in my career (only 8 years, but still) this rule popped up.

During a throw-in two teammates lined up front to back, and a defender wanted between them. The defender's coach was yelling at her to "get in there". I stepped in to let my partner know about the "3 foot/parallel" rule, meaning what the teammates wanted was good and the defender was not entitled to get between them. My partner stopped the defender from trying to get between them, and the throw-in was administered.

How False Myths Get Started ...
 

Along similar lines, a few weeks ago, didn't we have a Forum member state that a defender is allowed to be the player closest to the throwin player no matter who legally gets there first? Didn't another Forum member ask for a citation supporting that rule? What ever became of that?

How did I miss that one? I think we can all guess the answer.

Still Waiting ???
 

Almost two months later and we're still waiting for a reference.

Gave it some time ago.

Rule 7-6-5 says...

Peace

Doesn't Cut It ...
 

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.

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

Reference Please ...
 

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.

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

Rulebook Citation ...
 

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.

Reference ???
 

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

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

Do I Sound Like I'm Struggling With This Situation ???
 

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?

Dead Wrong ...
 

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.

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

Just One Citation Needed ...
 

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.

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".

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

Pretend I'm From Missouri, Show Me ...
 

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

Three Simple Plays, Answer With Citations ...
 

We'll? Just exactly who else in on your side?

Or just go back to basics:

I Apologize ...
 

I found it, and I apologize to JRutledge, but I have since changed my mind after coming up with this scenario:

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?

I was not asking for your approval or anyone to be on my side.

But since you care.

7.6.5 SITUATION: Prior to a throw-in on the end line near A’s basket, A1, A2 and A3 line up shoulder-to-shoulder parallel to the line and: (a) within 3 feet of it; or (b) more than 3 feet from it. In both cases, Team B requests space between the Team A players. RULING: In (a), the request is granted and a Team B player may position between each of the Team A players. In (b), the request is denied.

Peace

Wrong Citation ...
 

This is only for the parallel line of players within three feet of the boundary situation (it doesn't cover the perpendicular line of players, or the single offensive player standing in front of the inbounder), and it doesn't say anything about who may stand in front of the inbounder. Not one word.

Try again.

Remember, this is what you are trying to defend: "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

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?

So three feet is not next to the thrower? OK, thanks for letting me know.

I said next to the thrower, which is within 3 feet as the rule was quoted some time ago. But you have a bug up your behind as you do with other silly things (like what officials tell or do not tell players). But hey, keep up the good fight.

Peace

Let's Keep It Simple ...
 

7.6.5 SITUATION states "within 3 feet of it", meaning within three feet of the boundary line, not within three feet of the thrower.

The entire line of inbounds players are three feet away from the boundary. The thrower can be farther back from the boundary in some gyms. The distance is only important for a line of players from the same team lining up parallel to the boundary, within three feet of the boundary, during a throwin. (three feet defining when, and only when, this parallel rule kicks in).

Sometimes a defensive player may end up in front of the thrower, sometimes it may be an offensive player . If it happens to be an offensive player in front of the thrower, and the defensive player requests to move such that he is directly in front of thrower, there is absolutely no rule, casebook play, or interpretation, that states that "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower". Whomever legally gets there first, gets the spot in front to the thrower. There is no rule, casebook play, or interpretation, that allows an official to grant a defensive player's request to stand in front of the thrower in the case where said player legally gets there first.

Let's try a simpler situation, that doesn't involve distance, just position, i.e. "next to the thrower".

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?

Remember, this is what you are trying to defend: "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

Silly ...
 

Silly enough to get published in a basketball officiating magazine, reaching several thousand officials, and get an extra $100.00 in my wallet.

Not going to knock the hustle, but you do realize that everything published is not worth a crap right? Glad you got a point of view published, but many do not agree with everything here or in a magazine. We know how Referee Magazine articles are often received.

Peace

Agree ...
 

We can agree on that (which is why I had several Forum members help me edit the article, and no, I'm not sharing the publication fee with everybody).

Is this is in a case book? What's the answer? I think he's incorrect based on your rule citings, but i'd like to know for sure.

But, Thanks For Asking ...
 

I made up the three case plays mentioned toward the end of this thread so we could discuss three different scenarios regarding this "supposed" rule. I apologize if I confused anybody. I was not trying to be deceitful. I believe that the answers for the three situations that I described are no, no, and no.

I believe it's the third case where JRut disagrees with you, so i wanted to be clear what was correct. What say Bullet Bob Jenkins or VATerp or another highly-respected forum official?

I never commented on his situation. ;)

Peace

So between the pissing match here, I have to say that it came across as though Jeff was saying that the defender has the right to be in the spot closest to the thrower no matter what. He then cited one specific play in which that would be the case (which we can all agree on). Other than that, the defender does not have the right to that spot if there is already someone there is what I've gathered from this di** swinging contest.

I know. The "he" i meant, was the official in the case play, "Is the official correct?" I should have said I think he/she is incorrect.

The problem is Billy tried to take another discussion to this discussion and tried to tie in something that was not completely related. I made a comment that I would have never thought would even be controversial and as Billy does, he wants to dissect the statement and try to find something inconsistent in the statement, while not realizing that I quoted the rule and thought the issue was over. But that is what he does and it is funny sometimes, but annoying most of the time. Because no one was talking about his made up situations in the first place.

But hey this is the same person that came on this site telling everyone what they should or should not say as if he was the only guru of officiating language. Last I checked I never went to his camp to get hired at anything.

Peace

Could I please borrow Billy's belt? He can have it back when I'm finished. Thanks.

Why Do Firemen Wear Red Suspenders ???
 

Sorry. I'm wearing it tonight.

What Took You So Long ???
 

Agree and agree.

Play ???
 

What play is that? Maybe I'll join the "we" and agree, or maybe I won't agree.

Again, this is what I'm disagreeing with: "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

Never ...
 

You never quoted a rule that stated (or even paraphrased) "The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower".

This rule (Throwin: Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if an opponent desires one of the positions) doesn't say anything about the position of the teammates in regard to the thrower, it just limits their position in regard to each other.

In addition this rule doesn't address the line of teammates perpendicular to the boundary, or the case of one offensive player in front to the thrower.

"The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower" is dead wrong. New officials should not be learning this.

Actually I did post the rule, but not where you were making a big deal out of it in the thread. It was brought up again and I quoted the rule and the case play I believe. I do not have time nor care to prove it to you as that was then and this is now. As far as I am concerned this is really a silly issue you keep making over this, but again that is what you do on this site.

Yes the defender has the right to be in a position within 3 the boundary line of the thrower. Now if you do not get that, that is not my issue. You wanted to get into the weeds of the actual words when I first talked about this and trying to parse every word. And then ironically you quoted the very rule I quoted earlier. Not everything I say on this site is for your personal benefit and understanding.

Peace

Détente ...
 

100% correct for parallel teammates. "Within 3 (feet) the boundary line of the thrower" (which I've known all along).

That's the first time you stated it in that manner, which is not the same as "the defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower", which is the way that you've stated it in previous posts.

The addition of the phrase "boundary line" makes your new statement 100% accurate for parallel teammates.

The position of the thrower has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of this rule.

The postilion of the boundary line and the positions of the parallel teammates has everything to do with this rule.

Throwin: Teammates shall not occupy adjacent positions which are parallel to and within 3 feet of the boundary line if an opponent desires one of the positions.

Again, this seems to be very hard for you.

How many players do you think it would take to prevent the defender from standing next to the thrower? Probably more than one? Maybe? Possibly? Unless you see some very big players, player are not taking up that much space.

Also even if a team decided to be in that situation and put an offensive player right in front of the thrower, then they just made that player likely easy to defend and only 3 players that can reasonably take a pass on a throw-in. But like many things here, have people that will debate the unlikely.

Peace

Likely,Or Unlikely
 

It's not very hard at all.

"The defender has the right to be in a position within 3 (feet) the boundary line of the thrower" is correct in all parallel teammate throwin situations, likely, or unlikely.

"The defense of the throwin has the right to stand next to the thrower" is incorrect in all throwin situations, likely, or unlikely

The Pythagorean Theorem ...
 

Unless the inbounds players are "splitting" the spot, only one player can stand next to the thrower, an adjacent player in the parallel line would be standing next to the inbounds player (who is standing next to the thrower). It's simple trigonometry. Or one could simply use a measuring tape, only one player in the parallel line (unless two players are splitting the spot) can be closest, and therefore, next to the thrower.

I believe it was posted that if A is the throw in team, and they are lined up parallel to the line and A2&A3 are next to each other in front of the thrower, B1 DOES have the right to that spot between them if it is in front of the thrower. But he/she is entitled to that spot because of the "within 3 feet and parallel to the line" portion of the rule, not because they are entitled to be in front of the defender by rule.

I will go around and tell everyone, "Billy who wears a belt says so" and that will make everyone say, "He's right." :rolleyes:

Peace