The first time I ever saw this

[RefAHallic]

I was working a 12-year-old tournament last Saturday. Team A is inbounding in their back court. A21 rolls the ball inbounds toward A3. The ball rolls to halfcourt area when A21 picks up the ball to hand to A3. Of course it's a violation on A21, but does Team B get the ball at the original inbound spot or at the spot of the violation near half court?

My partner and I gave the ball to B at half court. They quickly turned it over to A which led to a game-tying score. That got me to thinking that maybe the ball should've been back at the orginal inbound spot, which would've been underneath B's basket. I've gotten conflicting answers so far.


I appreciate the knowledge.

[ChuckElias]

Refa, what exactly was the violation? You say the "halfcourt area", but I don't know what that means. If you tell us what the violation was, then we can tell you where to inbound the ball. Thanks.

[lukealex]

If I understand you correctly, A21 was the inbounder and the first person to touch the ball. As you stated, this is a violation, rule 9.2.6. The penalty for this violation gives the ball to Team B at the spot of the original throw-in.

[ChuckElias]

Yup, Luke, you got it. I guess I just didn't read carefully enough. I mean, who would expect the inbounder to do something that dumb?!?! LOL. I thought the question was going to be about where to inbound after a backcourt violation.

So, I agree. Back to the spot of the original throw-in.

[RefAHallic]

I guess I should've previewed question before posting, but you guys figured out what I was trying to say. Thanks for the response.

[Hartsy]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I mean, who would expect the inbounder to do something that dumb?!?! LOL.

I had a similar incident in a Freshman boys game last year. I couldn't believe what I was seeing (but I did get the call).

The inbounder turned around (following a made basket) apparently expecting his teammate to be there. No one from either team was still on his end of the court, but he had already put the ball in bounds. The kid just went in and got it when no one came back for it!

[Nevadaref]

Yep. Chuck and lukealex gave you the right answer, but it is interesting to note that the NFHS clarified this point in the interps that were issued last season on their website.

2004-05 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
Posted: 10/08/04

SITUATION 7: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball and steps out of bounds at the end line to prepare for a throw-in. B1 attempts an entry pass that goes near the division line, but no opponent or teammate is nearby to secure the ball. B1 enters the court and becomes the first player to touch the ball. RULING: B1 has committed a throw-in violation. Team A will be awarded a throw-in at a designated spot on the end line, which was the original throw-in location. (9-2-6 Penalty)

[M&M Guy]

Ok, I remember this interp and how it was stated. But, since I'm having one of my blonde moments, I was wondering what the logic is behind putting the ball back at the baseline instead at the spot closest to the violation? Isn't this similar to, say, the over-and-back violation? Player A1 loses control in the frontcourt, causing the ball to roll into the backcourt, where no one touches it until A1 is the first to touch it under the basket in their backcourt. The throw-in will be under the basket, because the violation didn't occur until it was touched first by A1. (Not at halfcourt, like many coaches and fans would want.) The same with this throw-in sitch - the ball was inbounds, and the violation didn't occur until it was first touched by A21 near halfcourt, so why wouldn't the throw-in be nearest the spot of the violation?

[lukealex]

Rules difference is all I can think of. Most times with the inbounding play, the violation will occur very close to the spot, so I would guess that is why the rulemakers worded it that way. It would seem more logical to have the new spot throw in be closest to the violation in the case presented though.

[Hartsy]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
Ok, I remember this interp and how it was stated. But, since I'm having one of my blonde moments, I was wondering what the logic is behind putting the ball back at the baseline instead at the spot closest to the violation? Isn't this similar to, say, the over-and-back violation? Player A1 loses control in the frontcourt, causing the ball to roll into the backcourt, where no one touches it until A1 is the first to touch it under the basket in their backcourt. The throw-in will be under the basket, because the violation didn't occur until it was touched first by A1. (Not at halfcourt, like many coaches and fans would want.) The same with this throw-in sitch - the ball was inbounds, and the violation didn't occur until it was first touched by A21 near halfcourt, so why wouldn't the throw-in be nearest the spot of the violation?

The violation is throw-in violation, so by definition, the new throw in is at the original spot.

Like lukelalex alluded to, throw ins have their own set of rules.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Hartsy
The violation is throw-in violation, so by definition, the new throw in is at the original spot.

Like lukelalex alluded to, throw ins have their own set of rules.

Sigh...you guys are right; it is a throw-in violation, because the throw-in was never completed by being touched by one of the other 9 players on the court. The penalty is no different than having the throw-in go OOB all the way across the court, it just goes back to the original throw-in spot.

I guess this is one advantage to doing grade school and rec ball, because I don't think I've ever seen that in a HS or higher level game. Doing those lower levels really does make you think about some of the rules that don't normally get applied.

Damn, I just looked in the mirror and found another blonde hair!

[RefAHallic]

Yeah. It's a throw-in violation. Of course it goes back to the original spot. The element of seeing it happen for the first time threw my reasoning off I guess. After the discussion here it seems the answer should've been clear from the start. Thanks again fellas.

[mdray]

devil's advocate question -- I agree the throw-in after this violation is back at the endline, but if the "first" throw-in was not a spot throw-in (i.e - after a made basket) then where exactly is the "spot" the next throw-in must be made from along the endline? Does it have to be where the original throw-in was attempted from??

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by mdray
devil's advocate question -- I agree the throw-in after this violation is back at the endline, but if the "first" throw-in was not a spot throw-in (i.e - after a made basket) then where exactly is the "spot" the next throw-in must be made from along the endline? Does it have to be where the original throw-in was attempted from??

That's what I do. It is the location of the actual violation....not the location where a violation could have occurred. They have essentially chosen the spot.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by mdray
devil's advocate question -- I agree the throw-in after this violation is back at the endline, but if the "first" throw-in was not a spot throw-in (i.e - after a made basket) then where exactly is the "spot" the next throw-in must be made from along the endline? Does it have to be where the original throw-in was attempted from??

I'd put the ball on one side of the lane or the other - probably the side on which the ball was touched.