What would you do?

[Hawks Coach]

I have real issues with this being a violation. Forget the tap - what if A1 grabs the ball, begins to go OOB to inbound and drops it just after stepping OOB with back to court, ball rolls on to court. Are you really going to whistle a violation? I see this as the same as if they are trying to secure the ball and it rolls away - blow the whistle, get the ball back to the inbounder and start your 5 second count.

As for starting the count in general, I think the count should start when the player steps out and faces the court with the ball, unless there is undue delay (and the ball is available to the inbounding team). We do not delay taking the ball out, but have some refs who start as soon as one of our players touches the ball. I think that the intent of the rule is to give 5 seconds to inbound. When you start as soon as a player touches the ball and before they step out, a team only gets 3-4 seconds to inbound.

[WI REF]

Coach; I personally won't allow the play to become a violation if there wasn't complete control. I would hate to have the game decided on something like that. I also agree with your interpetation of the five second count. It should start when control is gained and the player is OOB ready to attempt the throw in. Now there are some circumstances that will vary this.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Dave Brost
Walter-
I am trying to figure out where the violation on the inbounding team happened? If, as you say, you determined that the ball was at the inbounders disposal when his teammate tapped it to him, when it hit his hands and fumbled back in bounds to the opposing team, wouldn't that be considered the same as an inbound pass? I see no violation there, unless I am missing something on how or where the ball was fumbled.

Dave, I think in the original post A1 came inbounds after
she fumbled the ball to tap it away from B1, so we have
a violation for A1 being the first to touch the ball after it is inbounded.

[Dan_ref]

Walter, this was not a good call. The offensive coach
had every reason to be very upset. What was the
defensive coach's reaction? I imagine he must have
looked like Christmas came early, 'cuz you sure handed
him a gft.

[Mark Padgett]

Walter - I know a lot of the guys on the board disagree with me but I want you to know that I would have considered this a violation. In my opinion, there was a violation during a legal inbounding situation. I feel the ball was at the disposal of the team when tapped, then the fumble back inbounds came during the 5 second count (therefore during the inbound play) and when the player then stepped onto the court and touched the ball inbounds, the violation occurred.

I guess this is just one of those plays where we are going to disagree.

[walter]

For what it is worth, one of the assistant coaches on the inbounding team was none other than Joe Crawford, the NBA official. After the game, our crew had a chance to talk with him to see if he had any observations, comments, etc. He gave some mechanical and positioning tips, etc. and when asked about "the call", he said that he could see why we felt that the ball was at the disposal and why we called the violation. He also pointed out that he was the only coach who didn't question the call. He pointed out to us that the ball was tapped directly to the inbounder, she didn't have to reach for it, lunge for it, etc. She simply failed to catch it, bobbled it, and unfortunately, the ball deflected off her inbounds. The violation was called because the inbounder was the first to touch the ball inbounds. As for the defensive coach, he wasn't upset at all and why should he be, his team was getting the ball back as a result of the violation.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by walter
For what it is worth, one of the assistant coaches on the inbounding team was none other than Joe Crawford, the NBA official. After the game, our crew had a chance to talk with him to see if he had any observations, comments, etc. He gave some mechanical and positioning tips, etc. and when asked about "the call", he said that he could see why we felt that the ball was at the disposal and why we called the violation. He also pointed out that he was the only coach who didn't question the call. He pointed out to us that the ball was tapped directly to the inbounder, she didn't have to reach for it, lunge for it, etc. She simply failed to catch it, bobbled it, and unfortunately, the ball deflected off her inbounds. The violation was called because the inbounder was the first to touch the ball inbounds. As for the defensive coach, he wasn't upset at all and why should he be, his team was getting the ball back as a result of the violation.

Well, as Mark said, I guess we just have to
agree to disagree. BTW, I heard that Joe Crawford
is involved with summer basketball, I didn't realize he
gets started before the playoffs are done. How old were
the girls on the team? Is he related to one of them?

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by walter
He pointed out to us that the ball was tapped directly to the inbounder, she didn't have to reach for it, lunge for it, etc. She simply failed to catch it, bobbled it, and unfortunately, the ball deflected off her inbounds. The violation was called because the inbounder was the first to touch the ball inbounds.

This makes your case less strong. By all of the "in favor" posts I have seen, the rationale was that the player who initially batted the ball met the criteria for the ball being "at disposal." It appears from this quote that the key is whether or not the player being batted to can easily control the bat. That is, if she had to reach for it, lunge, etc., that this would not or should not have resulted in a violation. In fact, that was what I was trying to convey in my first post. If the player had batted it poorly and the ball rolled away from the player standing OOB, I doubt you would have called any violation (and probably not started a 5 second count).

I think that this should come down to judging whether or not the OOB player made a controlled tap or bobbled/fumbled the ball, not whether or not the player could have controlled and failed to do so. If you judged that she controlled it, then it would be a throw in and her touching it first would be a violation. If she did not control it, regardless of whether or not she could have done so, it seems that you should not call the violation.

[Kelvin green]

This may sound rhetorical and I might have missed something.... but where in the rules does it say anything about having "control" to bring the ball into play?

The rules require that the ball go OOB then in-bounds. There are very few guidelines about it. If the ball was legally OOB and then came in bounds it was a legal play.
I will state that this was a sloppy play, and at some level maybe you could bail a team out here but generally....

I think it becomes dangerous to read into the actions of the player here. I know we have had the discussion on advantage/disadvantage on violations, but generally if a player makes a poor dribble, a poor move that causes a travel, the hand comes under the ball etc, the official blows the whistle and calls the violation. I am still of the opinion that if we get into the business of saying whoops let's redo that we get into a dangerous territory that I am not sure I want to walk down.

Have you ever had a player OOB who picked up the ball and threw it to another player who was inbounds and wanted to throw it in? so they caught it and walked OOB? They didn't mean to violate but the ball was oob and went inbound and now its out again. It's a violation even if the player say whoops that's not what I wanted to do.

If in the circumstance that you describe a player tapped the ball to a player oob and taht player fumbled it. I will start a 5 second count because the 5 second count starts when the ball is at the disposal of the team. The ball became at the disposal of the team when the player in bounds tapped it back oob. I have had games where the player who tapped it OOB smacked it hard enough that the team had to run after it (if it had been the team who just scored there would have been a delay warning) If the tem is dumb enough to slap the ball and have the player making the inbound throw chase after it, why should they get a break? The 5 second count starts! (the other team would get a warning and then a T on subsequent offenses) but we would allow the offense to do it? ( and yes there are some coaches would figure it out that they could set up against a press by doing that or get their offense set up by making a player run after it) Not for me. Ball is a disposal of the team not a player. what they do is their problem. Plain and simple if a team doesnt want this problem to occur the coaches need to stress that they control their own destiny and the way they play on the floor

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
This may sound rhetorical and I might have missed something.... but where in the rules does it say anything about having "control" to bring the ball into play?

The rules require that the ball go OOB then in-bounds. There are very few guidelines about it. If the ball was legally OOB and then came in bounds it was a legal play.
I will state that this was a sloppy play, and at some level maybe you could bail a team out here but generally....

I think it becomes dangerous to read into the actions of the player here. I know we have had the discussion on advantage/disadvantage on violations, but generally if a player makes a poor dribble, a poor move that causes a travel, the hand comes under the ball etc, the official blows the whistle and calls the violation. I am still of the opinion that if we get into the business of saying whoops let's redo that we get into a dangerous territory that I am not sure I want to walk down.

Have you ever had a player OOB who picked up the ball and threw it to another player who was inbounds and wanted to throw it in? so they caught it and walked OOB? They didn't mean to violate but the ball was oob and went inbound and now its out again. It's a violation even if the player say whoops that's not what I wanted to do.

If in the circumstance that you describe a player tapped the ball to a player oob and taht player fumbled it. I will start a 5 second count because the 5 second count starts when the ball is at the disposal of the team. The ball became at the disposal of the team when the player in bounds tapped it back oob. I have had games where the player who tapped it OOB smacked it hard enough that the team had to run after it (if it had been the team who just scored there would have been a delay warning) If the tem is dumb enough to slap the ball and have the player making the inbound throw chase after it, why should they get a break? The 5 second count starts! (the other team would get a warning and then a T on subsequent offenses) but we would allow the offense to do it? ( and yes there are some coaches would figure it out that they could set up against a press by doing that or get their offense set up by making a player run after it) Not for me. Ball is a disposal of the team not a player. what they do is their problem. Plain and simple if a team doesnt want this problem to occur the coaches need to stress that they control their own destiny and the way they play on the floor

Kelvin, you make some good points but let's look at it
like this: (Team B just scored, A has the throw in)

1. A1 taps ball back to A2, who has his back turned to the
play. A2 doesn't know the ball is coming and it strikes A2's leg and comes back inbounds. What next?

2. Same as play 1 but A2 is inbounds when it hits his leg
(ie ball never went OOB). What next?

3. Same as play 1 but this time the ball hits a wall &
bounces back inbounds, or somehow rolls into some bleachers behind the endline. It doesn't matter if the ball hits
A2 or not.

I can't imagine allowing B to get control of the ball
in any of these plays. In play 1, if there's no pressure
and A1 takes the ball then I think I would just let them play. If A2 comes inbounds to retrieve the ball & then
goes back OOB, or if A1 taps the ball back to A2 then play
on. In play 1 and play 2 I will keep my count.
If B attempts to "steal" the ball then I would blow the
whistle and bounce the ball to A2. In play 3 I blow the
whistle immediately. I am going to give the benefit of the
doubt to A because it's obvious that they are not attempting
to pull a fast one, and this is why I would blow the
whistle in the original play. It's an "honest mistake".
Your case where A2 has control of the ball & inbounds it
to the wrong player is not an "honest mistake" and of course
I'm not going to bail them out. BTW, having never seen this
I can't say for sure how I might react during a real game
and I am willing to be convinced. As you point out we are
in some very gray territory.

I've just edited this to change "having never seen this" to
say "having never real thought about this". I'm sure I've
seen plays that are similar, I just don't think I've seen
strong reaction one way or the other to what the ref did,
which is usually give the inbounding team the benefit of
the doubt.



[Edited by Dan_ref on May 9th, 2001 at 11:43 AM]

[Hawks Coach]

Kelvin,
I see what you are saying to a degree. But I do not find your live ball violations (travelling, palming, etc.) to be the same as establishing control of the ball OOB to bring it back in after a made basket. The ball is not live in the latter circumstance. It is also quite different to have a player under control of the ball OOB that inbounds to someone who then makes the error of stepping out. The violation that Walter called was for having made a legal throw in and then stepping on the court and touching the ball first. To be a legal throw, we need to have ball at disposal and the ball must be released on a pass directly to the court.

It is clear that if you throw the ball to a player on a designated spot throw in and they do not secure control, that the ball is not at disposal (regardless of whether or not you think they could have gained control). If the ball in this circumstance were to bounce onto the court, you would not have a throw-in. The inbounder could go get the ball without violating, and they should return it to you and you could reinitiate the throw in. Now the question here is whether it was at disposal because the first player to touch it established enough control for you to consider it at disposal. I think it is not, others believe it is. I have no issue with the ball being at disposal as soon as one player establishes control OOB and subsequently fumbling it, or if you start a count before the ball is OOB because a team does not attempt to get the ball in position to throw it in.

The next question should be whether a fumble constitutes a pass. I think it does not, others must believe that it does in order to determine that the throw-in violation occurred. Certainly the rules allow the referee to judge whether or not a fumble occurs in many other circumstances, so I do not think you are granting a "do over." I think that the call can legitmately be that the ball was not at disposal and the inbounds play has not yet occurred. You cannot do over something that has not happened.

As for starting the count on the first errant tap that rolls away from the court, I personally do not think this is prudent. Yes, a coach could use this as a delaying tactic to set up for the press break. But you would see this more than once and could then determine that you need to begin a count on subsequent errant taps. (A word of warning to the team might be in order too.) One errant tap on a loose ball (and a dead ball) should not be cause to start a 5 second count or to call a violation.

[Dave Brost]

Coach-
I have to give you a tip of the hat on this one, too. An official should determine whether the fumble was intentional or not, as far as passing the ball inbound, and then act accordingly as to whether to blow the whistle and start the inbounds over. As for a team using delay tactics, a team may get away with it once, but an observant official will see this and enforce it the next time. As you said, a word to the coach may be good preventative officiating.

I think you should give up the coaching and join the ranks with us. You seem to have a good interpretation of how the rules are meant to be applied.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

...
The next question should be whether a fumble constitutes a pass. I think it does not, others must believe that it does in order to determine that the throw-in violation occurred...

Coach, you have certainly nailed this one (at least
presented it better than my long winded intuitive
argument).

Fed rules state (NCAA similar):

7-6-1 Throw-in Administration

Art 1...The throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal
of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in. The thrower shall release the ball *on a pass* directly into the
court, except as in 7-5-7, within 5 seconds after the
throw-in starts...

7-5-7 describes the throw-in after a goal (ie players can
run the line).

4-31 Pass

A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who
throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player.

4-21 Fumble

A fumble is the accidental loss of player control when the
ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player's grasp.

So, by rule, the call in the original play is incorrect
since the ball was fumbled by the player throwing in.
Under the rules you might argue that a 5 second violation
is possible, but I'll still contend it's best to blow the
whistle if B attempts to "steal" the fumble.

[Hawks Coach]

Oh, but I love these scenarios. I just thought of this twist, admittedly damaging to my previous position. What is the call if A1 takes the ball OOB after made basket, throws to A2 who is also standing outside the endline, and A2 fumbles the ball causing it to roll onto the court? If the fumble is not a throw, and I believe it is not by rule, do we now have a throw-in violation as soon as this occurred? Or, can A2 step out, retrieve the ball, and complete the throw-in (assuming all of this transpires within the 5 seconds)?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Oh, but I love these scenarios. I just thought of this twist, admittedly damaging to my previous position. What is the call if A1 takes the ball OOB after made basket, throws to A2 who is also standing outside the endline, and A2 fumbles the ball causing it to roll onto the court? If the fumble is not a throw, and I believe it is not by rule, do we now have a throw-in violation as soon as this occurred? Or, can A2 step out, retrieve the ball, and complete the throw-in (assuming all of this transpires within the 5 seconds)?

Coach, every night before I go to bed I get down on my
knees & pray to (your favorite deity here) that I never,
ever see this or any other weirdness on these passes
after a made basket. No matter what happens next
someone is gonna be very upset. But, I suppose I'll
just keep counting & let A2 retreive the ball, and I'll
just have to endure the whining & moaning!