Had a "semi-final" district boys game last nite. While watching the first game, coach for next game comes up to partner and me and asks about a throw-in strategy where a teammate of the inbounder "curls" from inbounds to OOB and back onto the court to receive the ball--this is to help beat tight inbound pressure. We made it VERY clear that this action was legal ONLY after a made basket. Agree?

Then during the game, on a SPOT throw-in, this team has a player step OOB and run around the inbounder and back onto the court, where he then received the ball. My partner called a violation, whereupon the coach went ballistic (only time during the game) and argued we had just told him before the game that it was legal. Sigh! You try to be very specific in explaining a ruling, and the coach STILL misunderstands. At any rate, we did have some discussion after the game about whether it should have been a "T" for unauthorized leaving of the court, but agreed that under the circumstances the "violation" was the right way to go. Thoughts?

Throw-in violation is correct.

I agree with Dan. The player merely violated the line.

I disagree.
I believe that it should be a 'T' for unauthorized leaving the court.
The thrower-in did not violate and there was not a personal foul so the correct call was a 'T'.
Now having said that, the easier call and possibly the politically correct call was what you did. Sometimes you have to take action such as this.
Example: D1 player is about to get the rebound when a player behind him pushes him causing the ball to go off of the rebounder. Official gives ball to rebounders team instead of calling foul. I've seen it call this way many times and it is always accepted by both coaches.

While I admit we had some discussion about a "T" versus violation after the game, we were confident that we did the right thing. Now, having actually looked it up in the book a little while ago, I'm even more confident. Under the Violations and Penalties section, Rule 9-2-12 states that "No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins." I think I knew that intuitively, but there's the "refresher" in black and white--and it's pretty specific and clear, I'd say.

I think this is one of those rare instances where the T is the "right", by definition. The player intentionally left the court to gain an advantage.

I agree that a violation is a great political way out, but I don't think it is supported by rule.

I stand corrected.

So, what U.P.?
 

Todd,
I finished U.P. Wednesday in D District semis.
You working the Regionals, quarter-finals, or higher?
mick

No such luck, Mick. I don't "play" the system well enough to have the right people know me and get me "in." I have the finals tomorrow night for my district (at least it's a good one), then I'm done. BUT I'M NOT READY TO BE DONE, YET!! (anyone see my pacifier around?)

Yep! It's black, has a lanyard attached to it, and it's in your bag! :)

I too accept violation as the correct call.

That is the beauty of this game. You know you are right, you just have to find the proper reference.

Todd's partner made the right call when he called a throw-in violation. One charges a player with a technical foul for an unauthorized leaving of the court when the player leaves the court to deceive his opponent. That did not happen in this case. A tehnical foul in Todd's game not only would have been incorrect but would have caused even more problems with the coach, because if he went "ballistic" on the violation call he probably would have gone "nuclear" on the technical foul. Now I must ask the question: If the coach went "ballistic" did he get a technical foul for going "ballistic"? Because I am going to assume (and you know when you assume you make an *** of you and me) he would have gotten a technical foul for going "nuclear".

OK, he went "ballistic" on the call, but not swearing or to the point of deserving a technical. What he did was argue we had told him one thing before the game, when he specifically asked us about that play, but called it another way when he implemented the play in the game. He stayed in the coach's box during the discussion (or at least close), and we calmly tried to explain that we had previously said the play was legal ONLY after a made basket. Yes, he was raising his voice as he argued his point, and the game was held up a tad, but we considered it simply a matter of giving him an ear and an explanation before moving on. I do agree, though, that had we called a "T" instead of a violation, it would have made the situation much worse. That's why my gut was that it was a violation, because a "T" just didn't seem to fit the crime. Well, it was my partner's call, anyway, and he got it right. We pointed out chapter and verse from the book when we saw him before the "final" on Saturday, and he was fine about it (of course, he had won the game on Thursday).

This is my first post, altough I've been reading for some time now. So let me start off by saying I think this forum is a really good idea and that I've appreciated many of the questions/replies that I've read. It's nice to know there are other "basketball junkies" out there.

With that said...Does anyone else think it was a problem that they had a conversation with the coach prior to the game? How would the coach of the opposing team react if he saw the game officials having a discussion with his counterpart, prior to the game...in the stands?

Thanks,
Jake

Jake makes an excellent point that none of us experienced officials should have mentioned. Why are we talking to the coaches. Prior to two years ago all we needed to do was introduce ourselves to the coaches approximately one minute before tipoff. NFHS rules now require a short pregame with the captains which is not much more than we were doing before.

I do not want to sound cynical (and I am not going into a long-winded essay at this time) but the only friends that an official has on the court is his/her partner(s). Coaches are NOT our friends. Sad as that sounds.