Throw-In, or Not?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Freddy has given us the Rule citations to tell us what we have. B1 has PC of the Ball and is completely Out-of-Bounds. That means that the Ball is at Disposal of Team B and the Five-Second Count should have started.

Below JrHS I can possibly see cutting B1 some slack, but JrHS and above, Team B's Throw-in ended when it touched B2 and one of two things can happen as B2 moves toward the End Line. 1) B2 will commit a Traveling Violation first, or 2) B2 will cause the Ball to go OoB. In either case, Team B has committed a Violation and Team A will receive the Ball for a Designated Spot Throw-in nearest the Spot of the Violation.

MTD, Sr.

I believe that take fails to take into account the intent and purpose of the rules. We should always officiate with that in mind. We are not robots and we need to use some discretion when officiating.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that take fails to take into account the intent and purpose of the rules. We should always officiate with that in mind. We are not robots and we need to use some discretion when officiating.

I do not know about you, but when B1 is completely OoB with the Ball, I am starting my Five-Second Count. And I have to ask you: How do you explain to Team A's HC that there was no Travel or OoB Violations after B1 has taken the Ball completely OoB after A1's FG. There is nothing in the Throw-in Rules that allow for "intent".

MTD, Sr.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not know about you, but when B1 is completely OoB with the Ball, I am starting my Five-Second Count. And I have to ask you: How do you Team A's HC that there was no Travel or OoB Violations after B1 has taken the Ball completely OoB after A1's FG. There is nothing in the Throw-in Rules that allow for "intent".

MTD, Sr.

Starting the 5 count has nothing to do with the position of the player in relations to in or out of bounds. It has to do with the ball being at the disposal.

I would agree with intent. Say its the star PG in a close game with full court press OOB and the clumsy 8th man just in to give a player a 30 second breather. Pretty obvious they want their PG to be the one to receive the pass. It would have to be obvious that (1) the player inbounding is giving it up to the player inbounds who is (2) clearly on his/her way to be the actual inbounder. Anything short of that, possible violation depending on what happens.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by deecee

Starting the 5 count has nothing to do with the position of the player in relations to in or out of bounds. It has to do with the ball being at the disposal.

I would agree with intent. Say its the star PG in a close game with full court press OOB and the clumsy 8th man just in to give a player a 30 second breather. Pretty obvious they want their PG to be the one to receive the pass. It would have to be obvious that (1) the player inbounding is giving it up to the player inbounds who is (2) clearly on his/her way to be the actual inbounder. Anything short of that, possible violation depending on what happens.

deecee:

No where in the Throw-in Rule will one find the word "intent" nor will it be found in any NFHS Casebook Play or NCAA Men's and Women's Casebook Play or Approved Ruling. If B1 has PC of the Ball and is standing completely Out-of-Bounds the Ball is at Team B's Disposal and the Five Second Count had better be underway.

I can give you a Joe Willie "guarantee" that if you let Team B pull off this type of Throw-in that you will be "whacking" Team A's HC and A-HC has an absolute right to want to be beside himself.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

No where in the Throw-in Rule will one find the word "intent"

Is it implied in the definition of a throw-in pass: "an attempt to put the ball in play" (or something like that)? If the action was not such an attempt (e.g., it was just giving the ball to the person who was then to make such an attempt), it wouldn't be a throw-in pass and the restrictions wouldn't apply.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is it implied in the definition of a throw-in pass: "an attempt to put the ball in play" (or something like that)? If the action was not such an attempt (e.g., it was just giving the ball to the person who was then to make such an attempt), it wouldn't be a throw-in pass and the restrictions wouldn't apply.

4-42-2 A throw-in is a method of putting the ball in play from out-of-bounds.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Starting the 5 count ... has to do with the ball being at the disposal ... would agree with intent.

Originally Posted by deecee

Intent is implied in several scenarios in general in the rule book. You can elect to call this a violation, I may or may not depending on the circumstances.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1013862

One needs both the rulebook language and intent and purpose to interpret this situation correctly, which may be redundant because intent and purpose is part of the rulebook.

[Freddy]

This happened last night:
Throw-In Foibles

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

This happened last night:
Throw-In Foibles

Nice video Freddy. Thanks.

Perfect for this thread.

Didn't like his signal.

Either pass on the call (topic of this thread), or call a travel.

He didn't pass, not sure what he called?

He had started his count when the first player (barely) got out of bounds, so he ruled ball was at disposal.

Was his count (as Nevadaref stated) premature?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Didn't like his signal... He didn't pass, not sure what he called?... Was his count premature?

He was somewhat surprised in a momentary lapse of complacency by what occurred during the waning running minutes of a 50-point game. Verbalized, after a late whistle, that it was a traveling violation but didn't signal it. What was going through his mind was, "Hey, that's just about exactly what happened in that thread on the officiating.com forum we've been discussing this past week." You have all that going through your mind at that moment, you'd forget to signal too.
Not sure who the official is...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

This happened last night:
Throw-In Foibles

A1 takes the Ball OoB. T correctly starts a Five Second Count. A1 passes the Ball to A2. The Throw-in ends when the Ball touches A2. A2 gains PC of the Ball and the T starts a Ten Second Count. A2 commits a Traveling Violation and then steps OoB with the Ball. The T correctly stops play for "a Violation" by Team A. I am not sure whether it was for Traveling or for Causing the Ball to go OoB. But the a Violation did occur.

MTD, Sr.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that take fails to take into account the intent and purpose of the rules. We should always officiate with that in mind. We are not robots and we need to use some discretion when officiating.

I have to quote Nevada here, although it pains me , and he's 100% correct.

Intent is implied in several scenarios in general in the rule book. You can elect to call this a violation, I may or may not depending on the circumstances. I won't loose sleep if we worked a game and you did.