Believe it or not - this actually happened.

Team A scores a bucket, team B1 picks up ball, gives it to B2 still inbounds, who begins to dribble up the court. My partner freezes, then blows whistle, and indicates the ball was never passed in from OOB. 4 or 5 seconds elapse. He then gives ball back to team B for a throw-in. I finally go to him and ask for his interpretation. I told him the count should have been on when she didn't go directly OOB with the ball and 5 second count called. He didn't think so and I let him do his thing. Coaches questioned the call and I let him do the talking. Team B actually took ball out again with throw-in.

Imagine the problem caused. Suppose B2 dribbles for almost 3 seconds and gets fouled by A1. The ball isn't in play yet so this becomes a dead ball foul. A technical foul????
B2 could have ran OOB and passed to B3 prior to 5 seconds.
Who would have thought.

What is proper call by referee?

What level?

Junior Varsity - Girls

Should be an immediate violation on Team B for not inbounding properly. This was clarified by the FED last year, I think. Can't give it back for a do-over (or, if you're from NYC, a "hindoo").

Like Chuck said, it's a throw-in violation.

Now, maybe if it was 5th grade, you could get away with the hindoo (huh?) as a teaching item. But at this level, they should be aware of how throw-ins work by now.

The proper call is an immediate throw-in violation called on team B

Case book play 9.2.2SitC.

Thank you for the specifics. I gotta get my books back to work so I can look this stuff up. Right now they're at home in the bathroom by the other reading stuff...oops, sorry...TMI.

I don't need the books for looking cites up. A good official memorizes the rule and case book completely.

Would I lie to you?

I try to stay updated thru this forum but apparrently I've been falling behind. I recall threads from a while back on this scenario and after much difference of opinion on how it should be handled (Do-over,Violation, 5 second count)someone contacted the Federation. If I remember correctly they came back with the reply stating that a do-over was in order. When was this updated to a violation? (Please don't bust my chops if this has been common knowledge for a while). Also if you blow the whistle for a violation immediately, don't you prevent the inbounding team from possibly realizing their mistake and going OOB quickly to inbound in time?

9.2.2(C) Appears to directly correspond. I just have a question. In that sitch, B2 scores off of the illegal throw-in. The ruling states that a throw-in must be from out of bounds. I have no problem there and totaly agree with the ruling. However, in the sitch posted, they simply started up the floor. If B's coach or a player on the floor realized they did not inbound properly even thought he ball was at their disposal, and had not used 5 seconds yet because I'm assuming the official had started the count, could they do the do-over or is the ruling a violation because of the pass and the start up the floor? Or, what happens if B2 after a dribble ot two realizes the mistake, picks up the ball turns and sprints back to the baseline in an obvious attempt to properly inbound the ball? Too late?

We did have some great discussions on this play here years ago. The FED finally clarified it for the first time in the 2002-03 case book. It's an immediate violation as per that case book play- 9.2.2SitC- as soon as the throwing team takes the ball up court without going OOB.

Yup, too late. When the FED put this case play in, they explained that it was an immediate violation if the throwing team started upcourt without going OOB for the throw-in. There were no provisions at all attached to the case play-- as soon as a player started up-court with the ball, call the violation right away. If they didn't take the ball upcourt and they're just confused, then let 'em sort out what they're supposed to be doing before you start the 5-second count.

Yeah, that was some debate, all right. I seem to remember that almost everybody thought you either continued your 5-second count or else you had a do-over. If memory serves, there were only 2 people on this whole forum who realized that it was really an immediate violation. Now. . . who were they? It's so long ago now, I can't really recall. . . Was it JR? No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't. . . Dan? No, not him. . . Must've been Tony, then. Wait a minute, no. It was wasn't Tony. . .

Jeez, I'm really stumped. Maybe one of you guys remembers. Anybody? :confused:

I remember.

Nobody had it right because there wasn't a definitive answer under the rules until the FED issued one. We were all guessing.

Iow, guessing right is a helluva lot different than being right. :D

Is that what they're calling it these days?

I thought vertically challenged was the PC description.