VIDEO REQUEST - North Florida vs FGCU
 

About 10:10 remaining In the first half. North Florida steals the ball and goes down for a dunk. FGCU takes the ball out and the dunker slaps it out of his hand. CENTER official comes in and calls the T. Shouldn't this be the new trail's call??

As I don't typically stare at the person making the in-bounds pass, I'd probably buy my C the first round for getting this one.

What does "Takes the ball out?" mean? Out of the net? Out of bounds? Many times in such a situation the L(New T) glances at the opposing coach for a possible TO request or perhaps at the clock.

Indeed if out of bounds, L, while not staring at the inbounder, surely would be looking in that direction if a defender was applying so much pressure as to be within reach of hitting the ball.

Yes, video would be great.

I will try to get the play up later tonight.

BTW, I called a similar thing last year right after a basket. The player clearly knocked the ball out of the hand of the thrower and it happened on my side of the lane. The ball was knocked out that it looked like the thrower made a pass and it would have been intercepted or put the team at a clear disadvantage. I did not hesitate and made the call.

Great call from what I saw.

Peace

I'm okay with the C making this call *if* the C is 100% sure the ball was on the OOB side of the throw-in boundary plane. I think we'd all agree that new T would normally have the better angle to judge that, but as Rich hinted, most of the time there are more interesting things for T to observe than the thrower, where 95% of the time nothing of any consequence happens.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is the play (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7gRtOCer7xg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Yeah, good get.

T was doing exactly what Rich said he might be doing in that situation, i.e. looking at the bench thinking maybe coach would want a timeout after a momentum-shifter like that play. C covered him like a good crewmate should.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two things:

1) Awesome work of providing the video, wow!

2) C deserves tremendous amounts of kudos for not bailing and keeping on eye on that. New T was not looking. Imagine if C had not gotten it. Yikes!

I can't tell from the angles whether the defender reached trough the line or not. However, if he didn't, it would still be a T for unsportsmanlike conduct since the thrower was just getting the ball and heading OOB with it to make the throwin.

Your profound use of pronouns is killing me. What is "it" in "However, if it didn't.."?

The thrower is clearly OB when the ball is hit so if the defender did not reach over the line to hit the ball, then why would there be a T? In that case, the ball would be on the IB side and able to be struck legally by the defender, correct?

Oooo...grammar police. It is called a TYPO. Before you go criticizing someone's grammar, perhaps you should contribute something useful here.

FWIW, I had been referring to the ball where the use of it would have correct. I changed it to refer to the player instead but didn't do it completely.
That is the big question. From the video, we can't tell where the ball was relative to the line. Yes, the thrower was OOB, but that is about all we can be sure of. I'd suggest that the C couldn't be sure of the position of the ball either for the same reasons. He was not in the right position to be able to see whether it was or wan't.

As for calling the T anyway, being OOB isn't enough for the throwin to start (and to start the 5 count). In this case, the thrower was just getting OOB and turned around. I would not have started the throwin yet. I would call a T if the defender slapped the ball out of his hands before the thrower could get the ball OOB, turned around and ready to may the throw....the same as if he were to knock it out of his hands when grabbing it out of the net.

Not criticizing your grammar in anyway, just made a factual statement. I simply want to understand you before making a response. Man, you get defensive fast.:eek:

The thrower and ball, and their location IB or OB, has nothing to do with the start of a throw-in and the throw in count. Not sure why you mentioned that part unless what I just typed was what you meant.

Can't disagree more. To me, the player was obviously OB. If ball on OB side and hit, then T. If ball on IB side and hit, then continue play. And not sure what difference it makes when "you" start the throw-in.:confused:

No need to respond to this Cam. You won't get any more exchanges with me.:p

(In some way, this all reminds me of when I was in Portland in 1980 watching Mount St. Helens erupt)

I love when people can't support their opinion and refuse to discuss it more.
This is where you are wrong. When the official considers the throwin to have started makes ALL the difference, and it isn't necessarily when it seems you think it is.

If the official hasn't considered the throwin to have started, it would be T for the defender to knock the ball out of the opponents hands regardless of where the ball was...IB or OOB. The opponent has to let the throwin start before the ball is in play. Once the throwin starts, you'd then be correct. But the question to be answered is when does the throw in start. Does it start with the thrower steps OOB? Sometimes, but often not. At the disposal is more than just being OOB.

Delay Of Game ???
 

If the inbounder hadn't yet gotten out of bounds, and the ball was slapped away, would it be a technical foul, or would it be a delay of game warning (assuming there had not been a previous warning)?

A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official
which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach:
ART. 1 . . . For throw-in plane violations, as in 9-2-10, 10-1-5c.
ART. 2 . . . For huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in
10-1-5d.
ART. 3 . . . For interfering with the ball following a goal as in 10-1-5e.
ART. 4 . . . For failure to have the court ready for play following any time-out
as in 10-1-5f.

Nope, #14 was the dunker. #12 ran down the floor and knocked the ball out of the would-be thrower's hands.