Throw-In, or Not?

[bob jenkins]

A scores a basket. B1 and the ball are out-of-bounds.

Under what circumstances, if any, may B1 release the ball such that B2 possesses the ball inbounds and have it NOT count as an throw-in (so that B2 can carry the ball back OOB and then complete a throw-in)?

For example, can B1 bat the ball to B2? Can B1 hold the ball and direct it to B2? What if it's obvious to everyone that B2 is *supposed* to be the inbounder? Does any of that matter?

Or, does B1 always *become* the inbounder, and the play described is a violation?

[cmcramer]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A scores a basket. B1 and the ball are out-of-bounds.

Under what circumstances, if any, may B1 release the ball such that B2 possesses the ball inbounds and have it NOT count as an throw-in (so that B2 can carry the ball back OOB and then complete a throw-in)?

For example, can B1 bat the ball to B2? Can B1 hold the ball and direct it to B2? What if it's obvious to everyone that B2 is *supposed* to be the inbounder? Does any of that matter?

Or, does B1 always *become* the inbounder, and the play described is a violation?

B1 releases a 'pop-fly' pass....in mid flight Team B calls a Time Out....B2 catches/possesses ball....after time-out B2 carries ball oob and completes throw-in.

I know it's not right, just trying to be funny...like BillyMac.

[Raymond]

JV and above; high level AAU/rec ball: I can't see a situation where B1 is entirely OOB and I would allow those actions. I think it should be incumbent for coaches to properly train their players not to interfere with the ball if they are not supposed to be the thrower-in after a made basket.

Lower, less competitive levels, I would give them a mulligan.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Raymond

JV and above; high level AAU/rec ball: I can't see a situation where B1 is entirely OOB and I would allow those actions. I think it should be incumbent for coaches to properly train their players not to interfere with the ball if they are not supposed to be the thrower-in after a made basket.

Lower, less competitive levels, I would give them a mulligan.

I think it depends on what the defense is doing as well. If there is no press, and there is no doubt that B2 is the planned in-bounder, then I'm probably going to let this go. If there's a press on however, I agree with you, I don't see a scenario where I don't call it, I think that puts the defense at a disadvantage

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by cmcramer

I know it's not right, just trying to be funny...like BillyMac.

You are both trying. Very trying.

[Nevadaref]

An obvious underhand toss to B2 who is near the end line and walking out of bounds. If B1 did that, I wouldn’t whistle a violation. The intent would be clear to me that the team wants B2 to inbound.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A scores a basket. B1 and the ball are out-of-bounds.

Under what circumstances, if any, may B1 release the ball such that B2 possesses the ball inbounds and have it NOT count as an throw-in (so that B2 can carry the ball back OOB and then complete a throw-in)?

For example, can B1 bat the ball to B2? Can B1 hold the ball and direct it to B2? What if it's obvious to everyone that B2 is *supposed* to be the inbounder? Does any of that matter?

Or, does B1 always *become* the inbounder, and the play described is a violation?

4-42-1: The thrower is the player who attempts to make a throw-in.
4-42-3: 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.
7-6-2: The throw-in begins when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in.

Other than the reasonable discretion employed on a lower-level game, I'm trying to put all these together to come up with a reason not to call a throw-in violation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An obvious underhand toss to B2 who is near the end line and walking out of bounds. If B1 did that, I wouldn’t whistle a violation. The intent would be clear to me that the team wants B2 to inbound.

That gets to the crux of this philosophical /theoretical discussion.

Is any "propelling" of the ball (I am trying NOT to use rule book terms) of the ball for OOB to IB a throw-in pass, or do we need to determine whether it's with"intentto get the ball in play (that's a rule book term) so as to advance toward and score a goal."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A scores a basket. B1 and the ball are out-of-bounds.

Under what circumstances, if any, may B1 release the ball such that B2 possesses the ball inbounds and have it NOT count as an throw-in (so that B2 can carry the ball back OOB and then complete a throw-in)?

For example, can B1 bat the ball to B2? Can B1 hold the ball and direct it to B2? What if it's obvious to everyone that B2 is *supposed* to be the inbounder? Does any of that matter?

Or, does B1 always *become* the inbounder, and the play described is a violation?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An obvious underhand toss to B2 who is near the end line and walking out of bounds. If B1 did that, I wouldn’t whistle a violation. The intent would be clear to me that the team wants B2 to inbound.

Originally Posted by Freddy

4-42-1: The thrower is the player who attempts to make a throw-in.
4-42-3: 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.
7-6-2: The throw-in begins when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in.

Other than the reasonable discretion employed on a lower-level game, I'm trying to put all these together to come up with a reason not to call a throw-in violation.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That gets to the crux of this philosophical /theoretical discussion.

Is any "propelling" of the ball (I am trying NOT to use rule book terms) of the ball for OOB to IB a throw-in pass, or do we need to determine whether it's with"intentto get the ball in play (that's a rule book term) so as to advance toward and score a goal."

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.