Throw-In, or Not?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An official who prematurely started a five-second count.

Can't tell if Nevada is serious? I am going to presume that he is joking. I doubt that Nevada would let B3 then do it, then B4, then B5, then B1 again, etc. for eternity.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by bucky

Can't tell if Nevada is serious? I am going to presume that he is joking. I doubt that Nevada would let B3 then do it, then B4, then B5, then B1 again, etc. for eternity.

I would venture to say he IS serious. Especially based on the video.

I would like to think we know a violation when we see one. I didn't see one in the video

I would also add, there is usually some verbalization going on which helps us determine when it is "@ the disposal". "I got it". "Jimmy take it out" etc...

[deecee]

I did not have a violation in the video. There is no doubt that the kid that initially had the ball was in the wrong place and the correct player was coming to administer the throw in. Both these kids look confused and it's way too obvious. If I had any inkling that it was a "trick" or a deceitful action I would have a traveling violation. This isn't what the intent or spirit of the rule is/was for.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

I would venture to say he IS serious. Especially based on the video.

I would like to think we know a violation when we see one. I didn't see one in the video

I would also add, there is usually some verbalization going on which helps us determine when it is "@ the disposal". "I got it". "Jimmy take it out" etc...

Originally Posted by deecee

I did not have a violation in the video. There is no doubt that the kid that initially had the ball was in the wrong place and the correct player was coming to administer the throw in. Both these kids look confused and it's way too obvious. If I had any inkling that it was a "trick" or a deceitful action I would have a traveling violation. This isn't what the intent or spirit of the rule is/was for.

Are we talking about the same video? The one Freddy posted? The kid who "wanted" to take the ball out of bounds clearly wanted to be the in-bounder, but I think the one who actually did thought that his throw was the actual throw in. Not to mention, you have defenders right there who are confused by the move. The first defender in the key is going to guard the 2nd kid, if he thought that it wasn't a throw in, then he's probably chasing the other one up the court after he threw it.

Originally Posted by deecee

If I had any inkling that it was a "trick" or a deceitful action I would have a traveling violation. This isn't what the intent or spirit of the rule is/was for.

Deecee, you bring up a great point though, the spirit and intent of the rule. If there is no question from EITHER team that it's not an in-bound attempt, fair enough, and I'd play on too, but if there is any doubt from either team, then I think it should count as the in-bound.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

I would venture to say he IS serious. Especially based on the video.

I would like to think we know a violation when we see one. I didn't see one in the video

I would also add, there is usually some verbalization going on which helps us determine when it is "@ the disposal". "I got it". "Jimmy take it out" etc...

I watched the original video and felt the first kid never actually went out of bounds. He released the ball to the other kid and his and his left foot appears to still be on the inbound side. I think the ref should have simply continued his initial 5 second count. I believe that the ref did not look at the feet of the original inbounder. Now, presuming that the first thrower is out of bounds, then indeed, there is a violation.


Zoochy had a nice video and I would offer a suggestion. Notice the level of play and the amount of people in the gym. These kids are young and having trouble doing some very basic things. As a ref, you are a coach..for both teams. The rules almost have to be completely forgotten and this play is a perfect example. Clearly, the original kid was not trying to inbound the ball and wanted the receiver to inbound it. Clearly, the receiver thought the first kid did inbound it and began play. As I said, these kids confuse easily, especially with each other. This is the perfect time, as an official, to be aware of what is happening. Once you notice this confusion, just mutter to take the ball out. As I am watching the ball/player/confusion develop, I found myself saying "take it out white, take it out white." It does not have to be loud, just enough for the involved kids to hear. They would quickly react to this instruction and play would continue without a stoppage to the flow. No one will say anything. Do this in a V/JV game? No, but the lower the level the more of a coach you should become. The same goes for 3 seconds ("get out 23, get out 23"), 5 seconds, etc. During dead balls, reiterate something to the offender. The kids need help. it really is on a case by case scenario. Many times, even the coaches need help coaching at the younger levels.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by bucky

I watched the original video and felt the first kid never actually went out of bounds. He released the ball to the other kid and his and his left foot appears to still be on the inbound side. I think the ref should have simply continued his initial 5 second count. I believe that the ref did not look at the feet of the original inbounder. Now, presuming that the first thrower is out of bounds, then indeed, there is a violation.


Zoochy had a nice video and I would offer a suggestion. Notice the level of play and the amount of people in the gym. These kids are young and having trouble doing some very basic things. As a ref, you are a coach..for both teams. The rules almost have to be completely forgotten and this play is a perfect example. Clearly, the original kid was not trying to inbound the ball and wanted the receiver to inbound it. Clearly, the receiver thought the first kid did inbound it and began play. As I said, these kids confuse easily, especially with each other. This is the perfect time, as an official, to be aware of what is happening. Once you notice this confusion, just mutter to take the ball out. As I am watching the ball/player/confusion develop, I found myself saying "take it out white, take it out white." It does not have to be loud, just enough for the involved kids to hear. They would quickly react to this instruction and play would continue without a stoppage to the flow. No one will say anything. Do this in a V/JV game? No, but the lower the level the more of a coach you should become. The same goes for 3 seconds ("get out 23, get out 23"), 5 seconds, etc. During dead balls, reiterate something to the offender. The kids need help. it really is on a case by case scenario. Many times, even the coaches need help coaching at the younger levels.

I don't get paid enough to coach and officiate at the same time

Do you also help serve hotdogs at halftime?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by justacoach

I don't get paid enough to coach and officiate at the same time

Do you also help serve hotdogs at halftime?

I understand. Keep in mind however that adding a little coaching, at younger levels, decreases the amount of officiating. It actually results in more value for your dollar.

[Raymond]

College game last night. V makes free throw H1 grabs ball and steps OOB for throw-in. H2 starts walking towards end line obviously wanting to be the thrower-in. H1 deliberately and quickly places the ball on the ground and H2 goes OOB, picks up the ball, and completes the throw-in.

They had obviously been coached how to handle situations where they wanted to switch the thrower-in after a made basket. It's the expectation I have for all the games I work.

[Zoochy]

This is from one of my games. I am not skilled on 'chipping out' a clip.
Go to 5:15 into the video. Player DOES NOT go OOB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uStIAr_HnBQ

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

This is from one of my games. I am not skilled on 'chipping out' a clip.
Go to 5:15 into the video. Player DOES NOT go OOB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uStIAr_HnBQ

This raises an interesting (to me) question -- at what point did you decide it was intended to be a throw-in, and not just giving the ball to the player who was supposed to take it out of bounds? Suppose White 23 had taken the ball OOB -- would the play have been legal? If so, then White 12's pass was not a(n attempted) throw-in? And, if it wasn't an attempted throw-in, then what would you have if White 12 HAD BEEN out of bounds, throw the ball in the same manner to White 23 and White 23 then went out of bonds?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

This is from one of my games.

Nice video Zoochy. Thanks.

Perfect for this thread.

Once 23 passed to 3, the throwin violation had to be called. The original "throwin pass" may have been made in confusion, but the next pass was part of playing basketball.

[deecee]

I should have been more clear. I was referencing Freddy's video.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by deecee

I should have been more clear. I was referencing Freddy's video.

Same here!

Did anyone notice C official come in the screen signaling a travel?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Same here!

Did anyone notice C official come in the screen signaling a travel?

That's because trail's whistle was so late due to the unexpected nature of the situation that happened, as explained in a previous post. Center saw it in his periphery and blew his whistle late when he identified that trail hadn't yet.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

This is from one of my games. I am not skilled on 'chipping out' a clip.
Go to 5:15 into the video. Player DOES NOT go OOB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uStIAr_HnBQ

W1 commits a Throw-in Violation and the T calls it immediately.

There was a very long thread in this Forum a number of years ago (when our FB Friend was still active (, I am sorry but he was quite active in the Thread and if my memory serves me correctly he was instrumental in the NFHS issuing an official Rules Interpretation stating the this indeed was a Throw-in Violation) about this very same Play. And the NFHS issued the previously mentioned Rules Interpretation.

MTD, Sr.