BI on TI

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by LRZ

BI on a throw that, if it went in, would be a violation by the throwing team? If I had this happen in a game, I would have gotten it wrong.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the BI causes the ball to become dead immediately, so whether the ball then goes in or not is immaterial. Award 2 points if violation by defense, then resume play with a TI (spot or anywhere along the EL dependent).

In 11 years, only got close to this once, on a botched alley-oop, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LRZ]

crosscountry55: What I meant was if there had been no BI and the TI went in, that would be a TI violation.

It seems incongruous to award points on a TI-BI where the TI itself could not result in a basket, but Referee.com says yes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by LRZ

crosscountry55: What I meant was if there had been no BI and the TI went in, that would be a TI violation.

It seems incongruous to award points on a TI-BI where the TI itself could not result in a basket, but Referee.com says yes.

I do not have access to my Casebook but there is at least one NFHS Casebook Play and at least one NCAA Men's and Women's Casebook Play/Approved Ruling addressing this Play. It is BI, per rule, because the Ball is Live during a Throw-in and BI only pertains to a Live Ball that is in the Cylinder and how the Ball came to be in the Cylinder has no bearing on the Play.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

crosscountry55: What I meant was if there had been no BI and the TI went in, that would be a TI violation.

It seems incongruous to award points on a TI-BI where the TI itself could not result in a basket, but Referee.com says yes.

It is logical because, without it, the throwing team could "shoot the ball" and then slightly touch the ball just before it goes in to end the throwin and make it a legal basket, being more or indefensible. Having BI prevents that. To keep it simple, the same rule applies the defense.