AAU game, regional final. First half, 1 point game. Team A scores a goal. B1 steps out of bounds (both feet out) as she is her team's designated inbounder. She doesn't have the ball with her. One of her teammates taps the ball toward B1 who fails to cleanly catch the ball and it bobbles/hits off of her hands, hits the floor inbounds and bounces towards a player from team A who will have an uncontested layup if she gets the ball. B1 steps inbounds, dives, and taps the ball away from A1 toward a team B player. What's the call? After some responses I tell you how we handled it.

I would have just blown it dead and readminister since there was no inbound, and it think it is a flimsy case for a violation.

Not that the other coach will think so.

yup!
 

Brian,
I agree. That would in the same spirit as an errant bounce pass from me to the thrower-inner.
Easy to rationalize.
mick

whoops let's do it over? Naw dont think so!
 

I wonder about rationalizing this to do over....

A just scores. B1 is out of bounds, B2 who is inbounds pushes/passes the ball to B1 for a throw in and B1 taps it back to B2.
Dont we see this alot?

As far as I can recall there is nothing that says that a player OOB has to have possession or control or anything to make an inbounds throw. If it is me who makes an errant pass to perosn who fumbles, it is the officials fault, in this case where the official is not involved and it is an ongoing play, why should we get involved? Ball is available and probably at disposal of team. a 5 second count would be starting. How many times in games do we see B2 catch it go OOB pass it to someone who is inbounds going OOBs to also throw the ball in catches it inbounds and carries it OOB, it that a whoops let's re do it too?
A player has the ball but is off balance fakes a pass to the left and steps in bounds the steps OOB to go back to the right for the throw-in, whoops off balance let's redo it?

If a player who was OOB actually picked up the ball and it "slipped" or was "fumbled" (WHOOPS) out of the player's hands into the waiting arms of a defender ( who might have been applying some pressure) would you redo it?

Where would you draw the line on an errant inbounds push/tip/pass. The rule was met ball went OOB a player put it back into play. I cant see a rule supporting this and not sure I would want to justify it to a coach who might be pressing..why I just took points away. Players do stupid things, In this case the player did not do a good inbounds pass and may have created a turnover. Players dont do good dribbles, shots or passes on the floor. I am not getting in the business of deciding this, Let the coach yell at his own kids, if the coach says something to me I'd respond back that kids were responsible for making a play like that. The coach is going to tel the kids to take the ball out right, guarantee they will the next time.

Whoops! lets do it again just doesnt amke it for me

I think there is a very big difference between a spot throwin where an official must handle the ball and a throwin following a made score. In the former, if the official hands or bounces the ball to the inbounder and it is fumbled in some way, we are to readminister the ball. However, in the latter circumstance, you had a player tap the ball to the inbounder. Once the player on the court taps the ball, it is at that team's disposal (actually, it may have been ruled so even before the tap, depending on the circumstances). Since your 5 second count should start at that point, you must consider whatever happened after that to be part of the inbounding play. If after having the ball make contact with her while standing OOB, B1 then enters the floor and touches the ball, it is an inbound violation.

Of course, depending on the level and the seriousness of the league or tournament, you may use your discretion and stop play, explain what the rule is and let them do it over. However, if this was a competitive league or tournament, then the rule is the rule. It's better to enforce it, then explain it. That way they actually remember it.

Re: whoops let's do it over? Naw dont think so!
 

Kelvin,
You bring a good argument.

Based on the fact that "the throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in" (7-6-1), and based on my opinion of when the ball is at the disposal of that player, I gotta have a do over.

I cannot see a moving ball bouncing off a player's fumbling fingers as being at the disposal of the player.

If I bounce to a free-thrower and he fumble-thumbs over the line, I have a redo, even though I made a proper bounce to him. And I think the end-line thing is in the same spirit.

Now, if the player OOB hits the ball with his fingers and makes an awkward motion for the purpose of pushing the ball onto the court from his fumble/touch, then I see the player's intent was to put the ball in play and I will allow that ball to become live.

mick

I think we are talking about two animals. To me, this does not sound like any kind of effort to inbound the ball. It was tapped to them and they were surprised/unskilled/not paying atention and could not secure possession of the ball. Yes, we see a lot of the "tap it back" inbound passes, but I don't think that is what happened here, hence bring it back in my opionion. And yes, I think that I have a fairly good grasp on knowing the difference of a mistake and an intended slap pass. If I thought it was a half arse attempt to make a cute pass, I say let team b get the easy 2.

We probably need to file this under "need to see", but by the description I don't think she had the opportunity to begin the throw in.

Re: Re: whoops let's do it over? Naw dont think so!
 

Quote:

Based on the fact that "the throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in" (7-6-1), and based on my opinion of when the ball is at the disposal of that player, I gotta have a do over. I cannot see a moving ball bouncing off a player's fumbling fingers as being at the disposal of the player.

The ball was "at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in" when the player on the court tapped it toward the inbounder. If the player on the court had just picked up the ball and held it, you would have started your 5 second count, wouldn't you have? Of course. The rule doesn't state that the player who has the ball at his disposal has to be the one to inbound, only that the ball is at the disposal of a player on the team entitled to the throw-in. Since the official doesn't handle the ball on this type of throw-in, the mechanic about making sure the inbounder properly handles the ball when received from an official on a spot throw-in doesn't apply. They are two different situations.

Re: Re: Re: whoops let's do it over? Naw dont think so!
 

Mark,
As always you make sense.
<li>Yes, I would start my 5 second count when the first player tapped the ball, or when the ball is at that teams disposal.

But, given your broad interpretation, after a basket a ball, at the disposal of Team B, could strike B1 on his hip, or head, while B1 is OOB and facing elsewhere (at a Teammate, Cheerleader, Mom, shoe).
Then the ball could bounce off B1's hip, head, or fingers inbounds. And you rule that inbounded? That doesn't feel very good where I am sitting.
mick

What age?
 

I want to know what age we're talking about. If this is AAU-14, I'm probably going to blow it dead. If this is > 16 year-olds, we'll probably play it unless it is real obvious (and this wasn't described that way). In between I'll hope I'm the Lead!

RE: What age?
 

Richard,
Yup, the level may cause a different interpretation.
I am trying to understand the intent and spirit of the written word. ;)
mick

Re: What age?
 

I agree with Ogg.

Yo Walt!

What did you do????

I think the best way to sum this up is that there was no intent by the inbounder to throw in, thus blow it dead and and replay it. Mick, you have it right on the head.

Dave: You are correct on this one. If there is 'NO INTENT' then you need to not penalize a team for a mistake. I agree with you. It comes down to the advantage versus disadvantage issue. I would blow the whistle and redo using my good judgement on this one. Wouldn't be hard to explain to either coach what had happened here.
PS You can't start a five second count until the player is actually out of bounds!

I agree that this is one of those "you had to be there"
plays but if I judged that B1 fumbled the ball inbounds
and A1 is about to grab control then I'm blowing the
whistle, regardless of the level, maybe even if I started
my count. If there's no pressure then I'll let B1
step inbounds to retreive the ball for the throw-in.

If the ball is readily available to the inbounder, whether that player is OOB or not, it should then be considered at the disposal of the player, thus the 5-second count should start. This keeps a team from killing time off the clock at the end of a game, or from giving the inbounding team an advantage by being able to "read" the defense on a press, before actually beginning the inbounds.

My last response was in reference to WI REF's last line about not starting the count until the player is OOB. I do agree that in an obvious unintentional error, you blow it dead and start over, no matter what the level of play.

Dave; Thanks for clarifying that last line of mine. You are right about letting a team run the clock down near the end of the game. If they are delaying in getting out of bounds then I would be forced to start the five second count. But if it's just a casr where they are fumbling the ball around unintentioanlly, then I would let in run or blow the whistle if it took too long.

when do you start your five second call?
 

WI Ref

I disagree when you say that you :"You can't start a five second count until the player is actually out of bounds! "

The five seconds starts when it is at the disposal of the team throwing the ball in, You may want to say that disposal begins when the ball is OOB and I would say that is incorrect also. If you wait until the ball is OOB you have just given the offense a big advantage. they can hold the ball or let it sit, wait for the offense to look at the press, set up and then pick the ball up go OOB and start the count. Now the 5 second call is more like 10 or 15. When the offense has it after the scored basket, or had a reasonable chance of picking it up, that's when the count begins.

What I was trying to say is; If the ball goes through the basket and is on the floor, I'm not going to start my five second count if B2 attempts to push the ball to B1 who is OOB, and is unsucessful. If B2 secures the ball and delays getting it to B1 then I would be forced to either start the count or blow the whistle and get the inbounds play started. I won't let a team have an advantage by delaying the inbounds play. I've been officiating the high school level for 13 plus years and have never had this happen to me. Now that it's been mentioned I had better keep my eyes open next season.

Better find a big log to start tapping.

Brian; I didn't understand what you meant by that?

KNOCK ON WOOD?

It is within the intent of the rules to start the count when the team has the ball in their possession. If the ball is mishandled, I would hope that you will continue to use your discretion to correct if needed. Sometimes the counts do seem to be a little fast with a few guys. I have seen kids pick up the ball, step out of bounds, and toss the ball to a teammate and get whistled immediately. That count is way too fast. Fortunately that is not the norm. 5 seconds is enough time if the count is correct.

CoachB; I agree with you all the way. I would hope as an officail that I would have enough sense to not cause a turn over because of a situation like this. My goal is to keep the game moving and be fair to both teams on the court. There is apoint where you have to interpet the real meaning of the rule, not just enforce it.

Give Kelvin the lollypop.

The correct answer was "knock on wood".

First of all this is 16 yr. old AAU regional final. This is what we did. When the inbounder touched the ball, a whistle was blown immediately. The lead official then immediately signalled for all three of us to get together. In our little huddle we discussed everything that has been posted here. The consensus was that the ball was put at the inbounder's disposal when it was tapped by the teammmate. Therefore, since the inbounder had both feet out of bounds and the ball had been placed at the disposal of the inbounder, we had a violation on the inbounding team. We then called both coaches together and the referee gave this explanation to both coaches. The coach of the inbounding team obviously wasn't real happy but understood our rationale. He then asked what would have happened if an opponent had tapped the ball to the inbounder instead of a teammate. The referee thinking very quickly said he would blow his whistle and tell the players to leave the ball alone and administer the throw-in. We then gave the ball to the other team and plyed on. The inbounding team eventually went on to win.

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'm having a real problem with the control issue here. If A2, who is inbounds taps the ball to A1 who is standing OOB. Does A1 really have control if the ball hits his hands and it's fumbled back in bounds? Also, does A2 have control on the tap towards A1? If this is the case, What about when you bounce the ball to the free throw shooter and he/she fumbles the catch? Is that not something that you blow your whistle on and re-do? ??????

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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!

I haven't said much on this thread, but I feel I have a position now, which is defensible. IT DEPENDS ON THE LEVEL. Sixth grade girls, I'm not going to call this kind of thing. In fact, I may blow it dead and hand it off for a re-do. JV boys, state champion school against biggest cross-town rival, (In Portland, that's Jefferson-Benson most years) I'm going by the strictest guidelines. At the levels in between, I may call it or give the player a look and let it go depending on the level of play in that game.

I mean, I did several games this year where any girl of any age who could dribble at all was varsity, and the freshmen team had no one but girls who had literally never played at all anywhere until they walked onto the court in November to try out. These girls get maximum number of explanations and re-do chances in my book. Usually, they're getting stomped and are lucky to score at all, even if they can manage to keep possession for more than a few seconds.

But at the higher levels of play, I will call this kind of stuff. A violation does not have to be intentional or tricky to be a violation. A fumble, a lack of concentration, a broken play -- at the upper levels these are mistakes, and if they result in a violation, they must be called.

Thats my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Until my son is playing varsity, and then we'll see....

So what is the record for number of pages?

I humbly submit that we leave this poor horse alone.

Wait Brian, I can still see it breathing! Let's kick it
again...



Rainmaker, go back to the rules references I gave and tell
me again how a *fumble* on the inbounds is the same as
a *pass* on the inbounds.

Juulie - as you know, I have been on the Board of a local rec league for 12 years and we have kids as low as 3rd grade. Our philosophy, which was developed over the 20+ years the league has been in existence, is (at lower levels) to call the violation, then explain it to the kids. We feel by doing that, it impresses in their yet-developed minds the actual violation and they are more likely to try not to repeat it. Not only do we feel this is the best way to teach kids the rules of the game, but it takes the burden off the refs in relation to being consistent. The more we use subjectivity in these instances (and I'm not making a case here not to ever use subjectivity), the more inconsistent we become.

BTW - we can discuss this further tomorrow (Sat) since you told me we have some games together at The Hoop in Vancouver, WA.

Also BTW - good news for Portland area basketball fans - The Hoop in Beaverton is reopening under new management, including former Trailblazers Larry Steele and Danny Anderson. It was closed for about a month, which eliminated six courts from use here. First adult league games are this Sunday night.

Horse still has life!
 

I must admit I've moved in my position. The key difference for me was the "fumble" versus "pass" definitions. At the moment I'm blowing it dead if the offense acts like they've lost the opportunity for a <u>real</u> inbound pass. As described initially, <i>tweet</i> and I pass the ball to the offense for the inbound. (Then during the timeout I'll explain it to the other coach.) I hope they just step in, secure the ball, step OOB, and away we go....

What would I do?

Shoot the horse, or knock on wood!

AK ref SE