Just for fun - we know this could never happen, uh, don't we? - imagine that:

Thrower-in A1 begins an inbounds pass but does not release the ball. In the process, A1 puts the ball, still in both hands, through the plane to the inbounds side. Defender B1 puts a hand on the ball to deny the pass, but does not tie it up sufficiently to justify a held ball whistle. B1 keeps the hand on the ball as A1 withdraws the ball across the plane.

Technical foul on B1 for contacting the ball on the out-of-bounds- side of the plane? Oh, the enticement of it all.

Held ball, if anything.

I dunno. I guess you could make a case for a T if B1 still had his hand on the ball after A1 drew it back so it was now OOB. However, if that was the situation, it's more than likely B1 had his hand on the ball while it was IB long enough for a jump call. He doesn't have to "tie it up", just have his hand solidly on it.

I wouldn't go with a T. I'd either go with held ball or stay with the 5 second count (ball still has not been released). You have to look at intent. In one case, the defender is trying to dislodge the ball illegally (T) and in the other case the defender is trying to tie up the ball (legal). This sounds like the defender was merely trying the latter.

If it happened fast enough and appeared that A1 may have released the ball for a milasecond I may even have out of bounds on A, giving B ball. The idea being that it was released and tapped (Albeit really quickly lol) back to A1.

I've got a held ball.

I believe this is what I've got too.

Held ball is the best call. It's the right call. It's going to be the easiest sell.

how come no OOB call of some sort?

Read the original posting. It wasn't a held ball, so you can't whistle it. I would say OOB on both players since B touched it while it was in-bounds. Means go to the possession arrow. Now, what's going to happen is the coaches will say it wasn't a held ball, means you gotta sell the fact that B was in contact with a ball OOB. Have fun with that one!

Unless B's foot is out of bounds, the only OOB call you can make gives the ball to A. Think of another scenario. A1 with the ball, B1 standing with a foot out of bounds reaches over and grabs it. OOB off B, not both. This is the same thing.
A has to release it before you can call him for being OOB with the ball. Unless A has released the ball, and this means unless you're sure the ball was released (don't use this as a cop-out call), you can't call this play OOB.
If A1 puts the ball over the plane, and B1 gets his hand on it and keeps it there while A1 pulls it back in, I've got a held ball.
I know what the post said, and I disagree. My threshold for a held ball may be lower here than in most other plays, but I can't see calling it anything else. Nothing else makes sense by rule or common sense.

It can't be OOB on both players because the only thing touching OOB is A1.;)

I don't know about it being the easiest sell. For fellow officials, yes. For coaches, players and fans I don't think so. They don't know the rules well enough.

True enough, but it's going to be easier than the alternatives. I can't sell OOB off both, because it didn't happen. I'd have a harder time selling a T for two reasons; first the kid grabbed it when he was allowed to and second the penalty is so much more severe that it's going to draw a lot more argument than a held ball whistle. This is a play that may prompt me to explain to the coaches what I saw.
So, while it may not be an easy sell. I think it would be the easiest sell of the alternatives.

Just contacted the state office (Nebraska) about this one, to see what their interpretation would be. They advised me if this were to happen in a game, just to blow it dead and issue a warning for reaching through the plane since B1 should have taken her hand off when it went back through the plane. The coordinator of officials said this sounded like a had to be there play to really make a strong call.

Ugh, you can't just issue a warning on this since the hand actually made contact with the ball. The way it was described, it's either a held ball or a T.

I did ask about the T because of contact. Coordinator of officials said, no, because the contact occurred in-bounds. Even though the defender is still in contact with the ball when it went back through the plane, the contact was initiated in-bounds. Said the spirit of the rule when it comes to the T is that the contact is initiaited while the ball was OOB. I made a suggestion he might want to send this play to FED to see if we get an interpretation from them. I also suggested the possibility of a case play for next year's case book so that this "rare" play is covered. He said he's never seen it in his 30-plus years as an official.

If you think about it. It's not likely to happen at all. If B1 gets his hands on the ball on his side of the plane, A1 is going to be very unlikely to get the ball to his side without a struggle. You've got a held ball at the first sign of struggle.

If A1 gets it back without a struggle, B1 is not likely to have his hand on it.

The play described almost has B1 simply touching the ball as it goes back to the OOB side of the plane. This just isn't going to happen.

I'll buy that.
 

My hat's off to the Nebraska guy. Much of the hardest 'interpretation' is knowing - or deciding - which came first, the chicken or the egg. This is where an ad-hoc rules-based system like the basketball rules breaks down easily, where two rules appear to have jurisdiction - that is, you have broken the plane AND you have touched the ball.

Choosing the lesser penalty seems entirely appropriate.

In fact, this is one of the principles involved in my new rules system - I have cut the length of the rules in half without sacrificing granularity - only internal confusion and accidental obfuscation have been removed, to protect the innocent.

Re: I'll buy that.
 

The problem is that the rule specifically states that if the player reaches over the plane and contacts the ball, it's a T the first time. It's not just a warning, by rule. There's no ambiguity here. Not only is it a T, also serves as the warning. This is cut and dried, folks.
It's a T or it's a held ball. Nothing else is allowed by rule on this play; including a Delay of Game warning.

Re: Re: I'll buy that.
 

As Charles Ives might have said, read harder. The rule, as you say, says: "if the player reaches over the plane and contacts the ball . . . ."

This is 'reaches over the plane in contact with the ball.' It's not covered in the rules as written, even with the 'interpretation'.

There are LOTS of things like this.

Also
 

While I don't doubt it is unlikely, I wouldn't agree with you that it just isn't going to happen. If the defender is tracing the ball properly, it might happen. What isn't likely to happen is that the official will see it if and when it happens. That would require a prepared mind. Lots of playing is high level pattern recognition. Officiating, too.

Good grief. :(

I'm calling OOB. Simple as that, how is it not OOB? Its not a T, warning or heldball.

OOB on whom?

Who ever is throwing it in.

How? the ball was never released. The thrower has a right to be OOB with the ball.

Agreed but once the thrower touches inbounds he violates.

So, once B1 legally touches the ball, A1 has violated by being out of bounds? You gonna call that if B1 just slaps the ball while it's on his side of the plane?

Wait a sec. The thrower hasn't touched in bounds. He's touched the ball while the ball was in contact with a defensive player in bounds. Or are you saying that A1 violates by touching B1, who is standing in bounds?

[Edited by Snaqwells on Mar 2nd, 2005 at 02:25 PM]

Snake~eyes,

By your logic, both A1 and B1 would have to be called for OOB, because A1 is still OOB throwing in. If you call A1 for OOB because B1 contacts the ball on the "fake" in-bounds, then both are touching, therefore it would be OOB on both players.

No.

Read 7-1-1 and 2, again.

This play is not a T, because it does not fit the spirit or intent of the rule.

It can not be OOB on both players, because it does not fit the criteria for causing the ball to go out of bounds, 7-1-2 and 7-3-1.

If the ball was not released by A1, or dislodged by B1 the throw-in has not ended, so it can not be OOB on A1.

The common sense judgment would be held ball. The fact that B1's hand stayed on the ball when A1 pulled the ball back, is close enough for me to call this a held ball. The play has elements of both 4-25-1 and 2, even though it does not exactly falling under either.

Blindzebra
 

I appreciate your careful analysis and reference to the less-than-perfect-fit rules.

I think the 'warning for reaching through' is the most balanced unperfect fit. Do no harm. Or do as little as possible. The rule concerning the plane doesn't dare say which comes first, the chicken or the egg, at that infinitesimal limit when the ball and hand are passing from state A to state B. After all, at the electron level, they are not touching, they are merely in serious proximity to each other.

So as the hand crosses the plane, a simple warning could do the job - and no matter whether or not the ball dislodges and strikes the thrower-inner, etc.

Re: Blindzebra
 

There is no provision in the rules to warn in this situation, breaking the plane and contacting the ball is a T, so that won't work either.

Also the note after 9-2-11 calls the first part of this play legally touching. It makes no sense to penalize B when they are legally touching a ball being pulled back into a restricted area.

Keep in mind that this was a bad play by A1 and good defense by B1. To warn B in that situation seems unfair. A1 carelessness caused the situation, thus going to the arrow rewards good defense.

Re: Re: Blindzebra
 

In the situation I made up, I made it clear that it wasn't a held ball. No undo force was needed. B's hand is simply touching the ball. A has the ball. B should stop at the plane but doesn't. If nothing happens, maybe nothing happened, since it doesn't fit any rule well.

Re: Re: Re: Blindzebra
 

Wouldn't one example of "undo" force be something like "a force that results in a violation of the rules?"

Isn't the defense player placing the hand on the ball so the offensive player can't release it on a shot a held ball that fits that example?

Use that precedent and call the held ball.

I think what we're saying is that we can't envision this happening without calling a held ball. If the contact is that continuous to the point where something has to be called, it's going to be a held ball. A1 isn't going to leave the ball within B1's reach here. He's either going to pull it out of reach, or there's going to be a held ball. If he pulls it out of reach, and B1 releases contact shortly after going across the plane with his hand on the ball, then I got nothing.
If A1 leaves the ball in B1's reach, and he continuously puts his hand on it; held ball.

Like the state office folks said, this is the kind you would have to be there to call it. Besides, if B1 doesn't gain some control of the ball that disallows A1 from releasing it, how can you call a held ball? If I did that here, I might as well as spend the rest of my career not even bothering to send in my application to work postseason games.

As if this call is going to cost you postseason work. Let's not get over dramatic on a once-in-a-lifetime play. If B never gets his hand off the ball, you're eventually going to have to call something; held ball, T, or 5 seconds. I don't think anyone who has played any serious amount of basketball can envision this happening without a held ball. Imagine every single scenario you've seen where A1 puts the ball in front of B1 like this. Has B1 ever just "touched" the ball? I've never seen it. Granted, I've only been playing and officiating for 20 years, so it's possible I haven't been around long enough. But if it ever does happen like this, I'm pretty confident my call won't affect the progression of my officiating career.

I've been away from the baord, so I'm checking in kind of late on this, but the answer seems obvious to me, and I don't understand all the discussion. If A holds the ball over the inbounds area, then B touches it legally, and then A starts to pull the ball back, and B is still touching the ball, it's a held ball long before it gets to the oob side of the plane. The whistle may not get blown that fast, but that doesn't matter. The held ball happened, and thus the ball was dead, before the warning or T type infractions. No sweat.

But B did gain control that stopped A from releasing it. A pulled it back instead, and still couldn't get it completely away from B. That's both players having SOME control and neither player having COMPLETE control. Held ball.