Two Wierd Plays
 

Just worked a high boys tourney this past weekend and had two strange plays in the 12th grade 7th place game. The games were officiated two-man.
1. I am administering a throw-in to a player from White, who is leading 55-54 with 2 minutes to play in the 4th, in their frontcourt on the endline at the intersection of the endline and the three-point line, when a teammate of the thrower runs OOB between the opposite three-point line and lane line, and then continues across the width of the court while OOB only to stop two steps away from the thrower. I'm thinking, "What the ?@#&$ is he doing?" The defender did not follow him OOB.

2. With white leading 59-57 with 17 seconds to play, we are returning from a TO and white will inbound on their endline following a goal by Black. The coach of White tells my partner that they are going to make an OOB pass on the throw-in and he relays this message to me since I am again administering the throw-in. I merely told my partner, "Fine with me."
So after giving the ball to W1 I begin my count and watch as he throws the OOB pass to W2 who is stepping OOB in the other corner. The defender is tailing him quite closely and he misses the pass, which continues on and bounces off the face of the front row of the bleachers and rolls back toward the intended receiver, remaining behind the plane of the endline the entire time. After waiting for a second W2 runs over and picks up the ball and looks to make a pass onto the court.

I have never seen nor talked about the first situation before, but we have discussed the second play on this board and I made up my mind then on how to call it. I'll post what I did in each situation after giving others a chance to say how they would have handled these plays.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Oct 9th, 2003 at 01:47 AM]

Sitch 1: If you've already given the ball to the inbounder, then it's a violation on his teammate to have any part of his body on the OOB side of the boundary.

Sitch 2: Legal. The ball never touched inbounds, and there is no requirement for the pass to go "directly" to the teammate, since it's not technically a throw-in pass. No call, let the teammate throw the inbound pass.

Chuck, could you append rule references or case book plays I could review on these rulings? Thanks in advance.

For Chuck's Sitch 1: 9-2-12

For Chuck's Sitch 2: I think it is the absense of a rule preventing the play that makes it legal. The pass was clearly to a teammate behind the inbounds line - it was just missed. The ball continued to stay behind the endline and was retrieved and then inbounded from a proper point. The count should have continued until the ball was inbounded.

Sitch 1: If the ref thinks W2 is using the space out of bounds to get around a screen, or to get free for some reason, it's actually a Technical, I think, not a violation. most people don't know this, though, so I would just stop the play and warn them unless you have reason to suppose they are deliberately cheating.

Sitch 2: I'm with Chuck, legal.

Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

Can this still be considered legal even though it touches something out of bounds (bleachers)?

Re: Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

Why not? If the inbounder just stands there and bounces the ball, isn't the ball touching somthing OOB (the floor)? The bleachers aren't extra OOB. Unless they're double secret OOB, and I didn't get the memo. . . ;)

Since you are returning from a time out, was the throw-in after a scored basket of from a designated spot after a violation. After a scored basket, the player may still move along the endline or throw the ball to another player along the endline. But, if it is a designated spot to throw the ball in, this now becomes a violation as the pass must go directly inbounds.

Re: Re: Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

However, if the ball rolls under the bleacher, or a kind fan picks up the ball and tosses it to A1.....?

Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

North Indy, if you look at the play again, I think you'll get the answer to your question. . .

Good point to bring up, tho.

Not sure I get your reasoning. 2 players OOB anywhere is a clear throw in violation from the spot, a second player oob NOT behind the endline is a violation after a made/awarded basket. Why a T? Why a warning?

sounds like she was thinking of leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. I would grab the violation, myself. But I can see the reasoning, since it sounds like in the original play the second player OOB was trying to lure the defender OOB to get him/her into trouble.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

Great question. I'll see if I can find something relevant, but just off the cuff, I would treat it as a fumble and re-administer the throw-in. If there are fans behind the inbounder and s/he fumbles the ball, which is then touched by a fan, I don't think we'd penalize that. So I think I'd treat this the same way.

Tag, Dan. You're it. :p

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

I betcha won't find one but I agree with you. This is one play I hope never happens to me. From the endline A1 tosses the ball over A2's head & the ball ends up under the bleachers or A2's little brother runs & gets the ball & tosses it back. Near end of close game. I blow the whistle & announce a do-over. I imagine coach B's gonna need some serious hand-holding after that :rolleyes:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

If this was a planned play, where A1 throws an OOB pass to A2 with the intent that A2 catch it and inbound the ball, I wouldn't readminister. I'd just continue my 5-second count. It's not a fumble of the hand off or bounce pass from an official. It's a poor play, perhaps caused by the defensive pressure, and the offense should not get a second chance. A1 created the predicament by making a wild pass. Don't bail him out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Wierd Plays
 

I'd probably have a 5 second violation by then.

Mregor

I actually think both are violations.

For #1, the moment A2 steps OOB, it's a throwin violation for having more than 1 player OOB during a spot throwin.

For #2, I can't believe so many feel this is legal. Passes are allowed along/outside the endline. They are not allowed outside the sideline (which this becomes). The endline stops at the corner. It's not what the players intended to do that matters but what they actually did.

Consider the same pass but as a bounce pass. If it bounces inbounds by 1", it is no longer a pass between OOB teammates but has become the throw-in. When it touches the wall/bleachers (it's not coming back unless it does), it is OOB and a throw-in violation.

We have had these arguments before.I lean towards Camron's point of view.

Comment on Sit 1:

Player from White purposely goes out of bounds to avoid his defender.

Why do I have in my mind that it's a Technical Foul???

Was it once a Tech. then changed to a Violation

If the endline stops at the corner why does the sideline continue past the corner? Paraphrasing Chuck: is there some double secret special property that sidelines have that endlines do not?

BTW, I completely miss the point of your analogy.

I mangled it...

If the endline continues past the corner then so would the sideline.

I just can't fathom a bad pass bouncing off the wall/bleachers being allowed to remain in play. It seems comletely cotrary to what make sense.

Which means the ball remains beyond the endline (more on this follows). And I can't find anywhere in the rules where it says the throw-in must remain on any particular side of the sideline except as it relates directly to the act of passing the ball inbounds. However....

Upon rereading the original sitch I agree that the ball should made dead when it hits the bleachers or wall on the pass - A.D.D. must have taken hold as I thought the ball was merely rolling around near the bleachers (too many damn words nevada!). Sorry. But I do not think we have a violation yet, potentially it's just a do-over. As to your point - again, after asking my 8 year old neice to help me with the big words in nevada's post - I can see what you're saying about the ball potentially being on the wrong side of the endline. I agree it's a violation if it passes *over* the endline on the pass (or if A2's deflection causes this) & lands on the OOB side of the sideline. If it hits the bleachers or a wall on the OOB side of the endline then it's a do-over, regardless of which side of the sideline this happens.

Agree?

Would anybody here let a player throwing the ball in on the end line go past the intersection of the endline with the sideline,and then climb the side bleachers,and make the throw-in from about 10 rows up?

It's still a T.The key word is "purposely".The language says "leave the court for an unauthorized reason". Rule reference is R10-3-4. What they're arguing here is "What came first?The chicken or the egg?"-ie the violation or the T.

Thanks for your help Jurassic!!!!!

It may be, Camron, but I honestly can't think of a rule that makes it illegal.

Can you think of a rule that would also make illegal A1's passing the ball OOB along the end line to A2 who is standing up in the side bleachers,but is behind the end line,and then A2 makes the throw in? Would you allow that?

On the pas under the bleachers, I agree with the crowd that would keep the count going. they caused their own problem, let them deal with it.

As for the ball beyond the sideline but still behind endline extended, my question would be this: Would you allow a person to inbound the ball on one of these plays where the first place it enters the court is the sideline. It seems to me that the intent of the rule is still that the ball must enter the court directly when it crosses the endline. But if the ball is past the sideline, it wil enter the court sometime after it crosses the plane of the endline extended, after it also crosses the sideline.

I have never considered this rule to allow this type of situation to occur. To pass directly onto the court should only involve the boundary in question, either the sideline or the endline. Would you allow a person to step to a place where they could have the first court entry be at halfcourt when the endline is the boundary? I would argue strongly against this, but have no rule or case to back this up. It just seems to go with the intent of the rule.

If the D has the press on and is pressuring the throw in,they can't legally follow the player throwing the ball in if he goes along the end line past it's intersection with the sideline. If the defender tries to,then now the defender is gonna be illegally OOB. Anybody here gonna call that on the defender?

When I talked about a technical foul, this is what I was thinking of. Which I did point out by saying "If he went out to avoid a screen or get clear". I do think the better call would be the violation for having more than one person OOB during the throw-in. It solves the problem without being overly confrontational.

Essentially, I interpret the "location" of the non-designated-spot throw-in to be bound by the sidelines extended. It says "outside the endline" and "along the endline". I don't believe the endline extended is along the endline. Once the ball goes beyond the painted endline, it is beyond the permitted pass allowed.

In case I'm wrong....I'm certainly not blowing the whistle for a do-over as some have suggested. It's either a violation (as I suggest) or the count continues.

You save the T's for the cases where a player obviously gets an unfair advantage by the act of going OOB.On defense,an example might be a defender going OOB to avoid a legal screen set right on the endline,and then coming back in to block a shot or steal the ball.On offense,the play in the casebook where the player throws the ball in,and then goes down the endline OOB before coming back in and spotting up for a shot when they swing the ball around to him. You warn if you can,but if they do gain an advantage,a warning isn't good enough imo.You gotta call it,or you're screwing the other team by allowing an illegal play and the accompanying illegal advantage.

Ya know what? There is nothing you can say that will convince me BY RULE you are correct. But after talking to some very wise people I've decided you're mostly right. There are certain things I'm not gonna allow (like A1 chucking the ball up into the 10th row) and only under very limited conditions will I blow for a do-over (like A2's little brother decides to get into a play I would otherwise let go). But this discussion has been good for me, because at least if I have this play I'll confidently call it and I'll stand by it even when my supervisor calls me at midnight wanting to know what the hell happened in my game. But I doubt I'll start tearing apart what "outside the endline" vs "along the endline" means. :)

Anyway, good mid October discussion!

I agree with you, and that was the picture that was conjured up in my mind when I first read the play. Later, I realized that the other interpretation -- of someone stepping out of bounds to receive a pass -- was probably closer to the real situation, and thus the violation is the better call.

Looking back at the original description of this play, I can't quite tell what was happening. Depending on what happend next, after what Nevadaref described, either call could make sense. He doesn't say whether there was some good defense in the key, waiting to intercept the pass. Or whether A2 stepped back in bounds and received the pass, or whether he stayed out of bounds and received the pass, or what.

Hey, Nevada, fill us in, will ya?

[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 9th, 2003 at 10:46 PM]

Later, I realized that the other interpretation -- of someone stepping out of bounds to receive a pass -- was probably closer to the real situation, and thus the violation is the better call.

[/B][/QUOTE]I don't know whether I made myself clear before.I agree completely with the above.You call the violation before they get an illegal advantage,as above.Call the T after they get an illegal advantage.

That is exactly why I chose to start this thread, Dan. In fact, I even said that we have had a discussion before about the endline stuff on this board and it was that discussion, which helped me make up my mind about how I understand the pertinent rules and what I will call if the situation ever comes up. Well, for me it did.

The reason the description of the plays left off where they did is that it was at that point that I blew the whistle in each case.
The calls were:
Play #1 Technical foul on the teammate of the thrower for leaving the court. I believe that this was the proper call since he ran OOB almost the entire width of the court. When I reported the T his coach tried to say that he was forced OOB, to which I responded, "Then why did he run all the way across the gym OOB?" He put his hands on his head, said, "I don't know," rather sheepishly and sat down.
After the game I chatted with my partner about the play and told him that I probably could have gotten away with calling a violation for having more than one player OOB during a designated-spot throw-in, but I believed that that call would not have been appropriate for what this player did. I think that the violation is for cases when a teammate steps out next to the thrower and he hands him the ball or when the team runs an endline pass play not after a goal is scored. For me it is a difference between simply stepping OOB and standing there or running a fair distance OOB.
Play #2 Five second violation. I did what Chuck said, and just kept counting. When I reached five the kid had chased down the ball, but still hadn't released it on a throw-in pass. After studying the rules due to our last discussion on this, I decided that no rule prohibits the ball from hitting a wall, bleacher, fan, or cheerleader, while teammates are passing OOB. Most of the articles that are in 9-2 don't apply because they are written for either a throw-in pass, which this is not, or a designated-spot throw-in. For example, art.1 is about leaving the designated-spot, and we know that a player certainly can do this after a goal, since he could set the ball down OOB run onto the court and then come back and pick it up again or have a teammate come and get it. And art.2 is clearly talking about a throw-in pass, not a pass between teammates who are OOB.
The points raised by Camron Rust, and Hawks Coach, etc., are good and I handle them this way: the rules say the throw-in must be made from any point outside the endline. (7-5-7) However, there is no requirement that the ball or a player must remain behind the endline (between the sidelines) prior to the throw-in pass being made. So if a team chucks the ball into the tenth row, it can go get it, but must bring the ball back to any point outside the endline before making the throw-in pass. They just can't pass it in from up there. Also, I believe that if a player runs into the stands who is not chasing down the ball, but just running up there for a pass or as a decoy, he should be hit with a T for leaving the playing court.

I hope that others learned from thinking about these plays, even if they decide not to call them as I do. The point is to be prepared for them.
PS Black scored after the five second violation and forced overtime, and then White eventually won by two.

I think you end up with a bizarre interpretation of the rules if you allow a player to go any place where they cannot legally inbound the ball. If you agree that they cannot throw from beyond the sideline extended, why would you allow a player to go there? We are giving the team the entire baseline - why do they need this additional space?

While I would agree with you in theory, I expect 95% of players and coaches are unaware of the T aspects of this play, so I would call the violation, warn the coach only (not the players) about the T for the future, and let it go. In fact, blow the whistle for the violation the minute he steps out. Then he won't have a chance to commit the more egregious act.

If you think the coach already knew the T rule, I'd call my assigner or commissioner after the game and let them decide what to do from there.

Nope, if I understand the original play this is wrong. As soon as A2 leaves the court you have a throw-in violation, you should have never gotten to the point where "he ran down the court" is justificaiton for a T.

Dan,
Unfortunately, you are making the same logical argument as those who say that a defender has committed a violation as soon as he breaks the OOB plane on a throw-in and therefore cannot be penalized with a T for fouling the thrower or for slapping the ball while the thrower still has it.

The logic of this argument has not been accepted by the NFHS and they wrote a couple of casebook plays to say just that. See 10.3.12 Situations A,B,and C on page 77 of the 2002-2003 casebook. Sorry that I don't have the new one yet, so I can't cite the page in it, but we both know the play rulings won't change.

In short, you penalize what the player does in addition to crossing the OOB plane.

Rain,
I think it would be very dangerous territory to officiate the games based on what rules we think the players and coaches are aware of and which they are not. They are all written in the book, and they have a responsibility to know them. I believe that the only right way to call the game is to properly enforce the penalties that are given for specified actions. If I only give a warning or a violation when a T is justified, then I am being unfair to the opposing team.
Remember this was a 12th grade boys tournament game, not some 3rd grade rec league, and the game was close with only a couple of minutes remaining when I had to make the call.

Also, I noticed that you didn't mention the ignorant fans, but we can probably agree that we don't care one bit about what they know or don't know. :)

I think that it is bizarre, too, but I believe that we have to give them what is not specifically prohibited by the rules. And since they only have five seconds to make that throw-in, they better be sure they can get back in time, if they go somewhere wierd, and let's just say that I might be counting a little faster while they are gone. ;)

This thread has now spilled into another one, so to avoid having the same conversation going on in two different places, I'm going to use some of Nevada's comments from the other thread in this post. Nevada makes the same claim there that he makes to Dan in the following quote:

From the other thread:
I would say, Nevada, that the difference between the casebook plays you cite and the play that we're talking about is that in the casebook, breaking the plane and touching the ball are part of the same act. They happen almost simultaneously. If the defender has his hands thru the OOB plane and is waving them in the inbounder's face for 3 seconds, are you going to wait another 3 or 4 seconds to see if he also touches the ball? No.

So then in our play, if the offensive player steps OOB to receive the pass or to avoid a defender, are you going to wait 3 or 4 seconds to see if he runs the endline? No.

In your casebook citations, it would be nearly impossible to call the violation before the foul takes place. Therefore, you call the foul. It's all part of the same action. So those cases do not apply to the situation we're discussing. If you can call the violation before the foul, then do it. But if you can't, then you call the foul. In the case we're discussing, the violation clearly happened before the player had a chance to "delay" his return to the floor. So call the violation.


Again, I don't think that's quite the right way to think about it. You penalize the player's action. If the action included touching the ball, fine. But if the action is merely crossing the plane, then penalize only that.

True, but this is different from a situation involving a throw-in. In a throw-in situation, you enforce the throw-in provision. In the above case, leaving the playing court is NOT a violation. So you can't apply it to the situation that we've been discussing, as you try to do.

Absolutely not, Nevada. If what you say were true, then the violation would be superfluous. It would already be covered by the other two rules you mention. But the case we've been discussing fits neither of those situations. The violation is there to keep everybody (offense and defense), except the inbounder, on the inbounds side of the court during a throw-in.

In case you haven't noticed, Nevada, nobody agrees with the T in this situation. Take the hint ;)

I never said that and I am not relating my argments to any other nitpicking done here. I said as soon as he *steps* OOB he's violated. There is simply not enough time to judge "intent" becase any subsequent action happens (or should happen) during a dead ball. And you clearly said you judged intent on the part of A2 because he ran down the sidelines OOB.

Confused !@#$
 

This may be the right thread or the wrong thread, I can't keep it straight anymore. I think you have to go to the preface of the rule book for this one. Just because it is not in the rules, doesn't necessarily make it legal. Under "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules" heading, it states "A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by rule".

Not that it would ever happen, but, someone running up the bleachers to the 10th row is an advantage. In my opinion, giving Team A a do-over because of a bad pass along the endline is also giving them and advantage. Once the ball is at their disposal I'm counting. If I get to five before it is released on a pass onto the court, I've got a violation. If they throw it along the endline and the player fumbles it and it bounces around, I'm not stopping my count. I believe that allowing a do-over gives an advantage not intended by rule. The ball is live and I see no reason to extend them a "second chance".

Really this happens so rarely anymore, I don't understand why we are talking about all these "what if's" but I guess that's what we do when we don't have games to work and worry about other things.

Mregor