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.

NFHS
It would be a technical foul per 10-4-5a.

Seriously? Does this mean that as soon as the ball goes through the hoop that you start counting? Where the ball and inbounder are located absolutely are relevant here.

This is true AFTER the IB officially begins. But if a player has the ball and is on his way OB to begin the throw in and it is knocked out of his hands? I'd like to think we would all have a T there. I believe that what you are referring to is the situation where the inbounder reaches the ball through the plane, and that is touched/dislodged by the defender.

Yes, seriously. No, not as soon as it goes through the hoop because when the ball goes through the hoop, it is not readily available. Throw-in starts and count starts when ball is at the disposal of the thrower. I do not feel that ball and inbounder location are relevant to when throwin/count start as it is not described in the throw-in administration. An an example, the ball goes through the hoop, bounces, and comes to rest IB. The thrower, also IB, stands next to the ball for 3 seconds. Clearly, the ball is at his disposal and a count would be started. neither ball, nor thrower were OB but rather IB. The ball's location and the thrower's location, as far as IB/OB, matter not.

No. Slapping the ball out of his hands is an unsporting act and is an automatic T.

Fair enough, but if the eventual inbounder is clearly on their way to securing the ball and is going straight OOB, then you will hold the start of your count until they are there correct? That is why I don't think you can say that the location of either has "nothing" to do with the start of the throw in.

When does it start, then? What is disposal? What criteria are used to start the count?

Seems to me that "Not Really An Official" needs to spend a little more time reading and understanding the concepts of this game and the input given by "Really an Official".

To answer your question, generally speaking, yes. The location indeed has nothing to do with the start of the throw-in in terms of the definition.

You mentioned going straight OOB, which to me implies some sort of speed/urgency. In that case, yes, waiting a bit seems appropriate. Now, imagine the thrower obtaining the ball at the top of the key (ball got inadvertently knocked there after a basket). He turns, and walks very, very slowly towards the endline, looking at his coach/others for some sort of direction or looking for perhaps someone else who is supposed to take the ball OOB. Looks like a stall tactic or confusion on their part. In that case, I am not waiting until he gets OOB before starting my count. Again, generally speaking, yes, wait until they have secured the ball and get OOB.

99 times out of 100, you should not start the count until the thrower has the ball OOB and is looking for a teammate. This is what Camron was getting at. The fact that there are exceptions does not change that fact.

(moderator note) I'm not going to address your other garbage, Camron seems to have done that well enough, other than to say it really needs to stop now.

Citation ...
 

A player shall not: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in
play.
b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer
official when a whistle blows.
c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is
ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure
is in effect following a time-out or intermission.
d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

I understand that slapping the ball out of the hands of an inbounder who is out of bounds is an immediate technical foul, but in this case the "inbounder" is still inbounds (the throwin hasn't started). Isn't that interfering with the ball following a goal, and thus deserving of a delay warning (or technical foul for the second delay)?

10.3.10 SITUATION A: After a field goal, A1 has the ball out of bounds for a
throw-in. Thrower A1 holds the ball: (a) B2 crosses the boundary line and fouls
A1; or (b) B2 reaches through the out-of-bounds plane and touches the ball while
in the hands of A1. RULING: It is an intentional personal foul in (a), and a technical
foul in (b). In (a), such a contact foul with the thrower during a throw-in
shall be considered intentional, or if it is violent, it should be ruled flagrant.
COMMENT: Either act is a foul and it should be called whenever it occurs during
a game without regard to time or score or whether the team had or had not been
warned for a delay-of-game situation. If the player making the throw-in (A1)
reaches through the out-of-bounds plane into the court and B1 then slaps the ball
from the hand of A1, no violation has occurred. B1 has merely slapped a live ball
from the hands of A1. (4-19-3, 4; 9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through
the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game,
Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had
already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1breaks the plane and subsequently
contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act
and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free
throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning
for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team
technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

So if a player who has two hands on the ball is on their way out of bounds to in bound the ball, and a defender slaps it out of their hands, you're not going to call the T, and instead call it a delay of game warning? I think that is allowing the defender to get away with what I would call a clear and obvious unsporting act. No reason to swat at what is clearly a dead ball at any point for any reason. In fact, allowing him to get away with that only increases the chances that someone on the other team might react in a negative way. Punish the instigator before it escalates.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

That's what I'm asking. If instead of slapping the ball out of the player's hands, the defensive player simply slaps the ball away before the offensive player can get his hands on the ball, aren't we calling a delay here?

Yes, but you've changed the play to something completely different.

Yes, that is a delay. I had interpreted your original statement as slapping the ball away from an inbounder who had possession of it, but just had not ran out of bounds to begin the throw-in yet.

It could be either a delay or a T depending on how you judge the action. Do they delay it or prevent it? Do they just knock the ball out of reach or do they bat/throw it into the stands? (10-4-5a)

I had this play earlier in the season in a wRECk league game (NFHS rules). Team A makes a basket to take a 1 point lead with under 10 seconds left. A1 intentionally knocks the ball away from the court and into the hallway (door has to be kept open during games). This was clearly designed to prevent the ball from becoming live immediately and allowing the defense to get set up before Team B had a chance to inbound the ball.

My partner, who was the new trail, wanted to only give a delay warning. I insisted it should have been a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct because it was a clearly intentional act of changing direction and reaching out to strike the ball.

We eventually went with the unsportsmanlike tech call, and the guys proceeds to miss the two free throws, and then commits a 5 second violation on the inbound pass after the free throws.

Delay ...
 

I'm going with Rule 10-4-5-a:

ART. 5

A player shall not:

Delay the game by acts such as:

a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle sounds.

c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.

d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

At this critical point in the game, it seems apparent what the defender was trying to do. His team should not benefit from that.

+1

Yes, it would seem that "Into the hallway" counts as "Preventing the ball from being put into play".

Calling Nevadaref ...
 

While looking for the citation (above), I had hoped to come across a citation that stated that the official should not sound his whistle, i.e., ignore the delay, if there was less than five seconds on the clock (with the inbounding team ahead). I've looked twice, in the casebook, and in the Forum annual interpretations thread.

Did I dream this citation? Can anybody help me find it if, indeed, it really does exist.

Intent ...
 

Yet the caseplay is very specific that this should be a delay warning situation, not an immediate technical foul, even if the purpose of slapping the ball away is clearly so that the other team is unable to make a quick throw-in.

Someone please explain to me why we're inventing our own rulings that suit ones own personal sense of justice, when those rulings contradict a very specific and identical case play.

TPTB have told us very explicitly what they want called here. Why diverge?

+1.

I think the distinction is being made whether A1 has the ball. There seems to be a few points of possible violation here.

1. The ball is bouncing around.
2. A1 has the ball but the throw in has not started (ball is still dead).
3. A1 has the ball and the throw in has started (ball is live).

1 and 3 are obvious. 1 is a DOG, 3 is an immediate TF and a DOG warning.

The question is on 2, which is different than the case play quoted.

#1 still has two options, delaying of game or prevention of the ball becoming live. Both rules exist with no clear indication of when it moves from the warning to the immediate T.

A delay of game occurs during a dead ball. In the video, I consider it to be a live ball and thus a T. The scenario of a player having the ball with two hands and walking towards the endline is also a live ball IMO so I would go with a T. There was also the scenario of the dead ball being knocked into the hallway. IMO, that is too egregious to call a DOG and would go with a T. I would consider it unsporting, just as I would if the player grabbed the dead ball and punted it clear across the gym. It might fit the DOG case but IMO, it also fits the player technical foul rule (unsporting).

I think a lot of it comes down to when you think the ball is live and the extent of the act.

See case 6.1.2 sit B for some wording that somewhat describes an official's action in this/these types of scenarios after a goal.

So, you're starting the 5 count before the player gets OOB with the ball and in a position to make a legal throwin?

9.2.10 Situation A Comment

Thanks Nevadaref ...
 

I don't think that when the ball is considered live is a matter of opinion. If he's got the ball and is headed OB at a reasonable pace to make the throw-in, then it isn't live. Didn't we cover that in this thread like 2 pages ago?

bucky... ducky.... Nah, couldn't be.....

Sorry. My comment was in relation to chap's play where he ruled incorrectly and two others immediately agreed with his incorrect ruling, even though the right ruling and caseplay were immediately posted. I should have been more specific.

Makes sense. Ignore the caseplay that addresses this almost exactly... and rule differently because a nearby door happened to be open.

It's not live until he's actually out of bounds and engaged in the throw-in, particularly if he's moving at a reasonable pace.

If the team or player is delaying, then we can start it earlier than that, but that's a rarity (significantly less than once per game).

We will have to agree to disagree. It isn't a matter of opinion on a jump ball or a FT but it certainly is on a throw-in. Maybe not in your example but there are lots of other examples (I provided at least 2) that would prove otherwise.

Thanks for proving my point.


Case 4.42.3 also assists us. To me the main line is "...the throw-in count begins when the official determines B1 has had ample time to secure the ball, it need not be in B1's possession." Obviously this is for a situation involving a player causing his own delay but my point is that each throw-in essentially starts when an official makes that determination and there are countless situations where no two officials would agree on when the throw-in should start.

Exactly.

A player holding the ball inbounds is not able to make a legal throwin from that inbounds location so it is not yet at their disposal for a throwin. It is available for a throwin only when it has been taken to a spot where a throwin can be legally made. It is also to be considered to be available and at their disposal when sufficient time has been allowed to do so but the team/player is delaying.

Considering it live as soon as a player grabs the ball, and thus starting the 5 count, is penalizing the throwing team by reducing the actual time they have to make the throwin below the full 5 seconds. If you are not starting the 5 count, however, you have not considered the ball live.

Live Ball ...
 

The ball becomes live when:
b. On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.

A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is:
d. Available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count.

The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the
disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.

correct call so move on
 

Correct call, partner helped, so move on, and thank him/her.

That is not clear from the videos we have. We can not tell if the defender reached through the plane to hit the ball or hit the ball only on the inbounds side of the line. I assert that the C, from where he was, couldn't have been 100% sure either.

Ok guys, you are correct that I made the incorrect call, but not for the reasons you seem to think you are.

If you refer back to the casebook a few years ago, there actually was a play in which the comments discussed this situation.

2011-2012 Casebook play 9-2-10 Situation A on page 74.

The initial play discussed the ball being knocked out of the inbounders hand. This we can all agree should be called, and a warning for delay issued.

The key part of the situation is the last part.

In situations where the clock is running and 5 or less seconds remain in the game, the throw in plane violation or interference with the ball should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. "However if the tactic in any way interferes with the throwers efforts to make a throw in, a technical foul SHALL BE CALLED even though no previous warning had been issued. In this case, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

The only reason my ruling was incorrect was because there were under 10 seconds, not under 5 seconds.

This comment seems very clear that if a team intentionally commits a delay violation in order to benefit themselves late in the game, a technical foul SHALL be called even if the warning had not been issued.

This comment does seem inconsistent with all of the rules referenced, and includes references to all of the rules which indicate a team delay shall be issued first, so I do understand where you guys are stating I am incorrect, but

Refer to my comment above you about why you are not exactly as correct as you think you are.

I think you are reading more into that than is there. What you are quoting is a provision that says, essentially, if the clock is going to expire anyway, and the team that is behind commits a delay of game violation, just let the clock expire -- unless it is so bad you can't ignore it, in which case you jump over a warning to a T, as the warning would benefit that team and give them a chance to intercept the inbound pass.

But that was not your situation: the team that was ahead was the one that committed the delay. Stopping the clock wit a DOG allows the other team to inbound.

I don't think this play supports your T at all, even if there had been fewer than 5 seconds left.

Werd!

+1

I've given you more credit than you deserve, sir.

Please re-read both case plays and take into account who is ahead.

The comment is for a very specific play, especially given the other case play mentioned and it's comments. Be careful about applying the case play for an extremely narrow scenario. You absolutely cannot divorce the comment you highlighted in red from the words immediately preceding the word "however": "In situations where the clock is running and 5 or less seconds remain in the game, the throw in plane violation or interference with the ball should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock."

A plain reading should lead you to conclude that the portion you highlighted, like the instructions to ignore, are ONLY applicable in this specific situation (trailing team trying to stop the clock with less than 5 seconds left.)