You got it. Should we, uh, hug or something now? :D

I read the rule many times and the violation when B touches the throw-in pass while OOB is indeed not a violation by A but by Team B. The question is whether it is a 9-2-10 (throw-in) violation committed by B or a 9-3 (OOB) violation committed by B. The wording of 9-2-10 does not preclude it being applied against B and if that is the case then the throw-in would be on the end line by A.

Study on 9-2-2. It says that, if the thrower passes the ball directly onto the court, the thrower has fulfilled his/her responsibility. 9-2-10 addresses the responsibilities of the other 9 players during a throw-in. It says: if one of those other 9 is out-of-bounds, the throw-in goes to the opponents at that spot. Just as, if, during normal play, the ball hits a player who happens to be legally out-of-bounds.

To take a simple, specific case, imagine a ball thrown-in that bounces on the court in-bounds. B1 chases the ball and, as s/he gets to the ball, is stepping on a boundary line. Violation by B1.

9-2-3 address a different issue altogether.

I now understand better what you are saying. You are saying that if EITHER A or B violated 9-2-10 the throw-in would be at the OOB point as opposed to the throw-in point. My premise was that there is no cause to treat Team A and B differently which I guess you agree with.

To get back to the wording, I see no good verbiage that establishes that a violation of 9-2-2 (throw-in untouched and OOB) should be at the throw-in point while 9-2-10 (throw-in caught by player OOB) should be at the OOB point. I have taken the ball back to the throw-in point for violations of 9-2-2 (which is the more common violation) for my entire career, however I saw no reason not to do the same for 9-2-10.

However, I will certainly yield to the consensus of the interpretation that the violation for 9-2-2 occured at the throw-in spot while for 9-2-10 occured at the OOB spot. An extra case example would probably be useful here.

I think I've been wrong . . .

"To get back to the wording, I see no good verbiage that establishes that a violation of 9-2-2 (throw-in untouched and OOB) should be at the throw-in point."

I think we agree that a throw-in that goes out of bounds untouched (doesn't hit a player of either Team who happens to be legally out of bounds) is a violation of 9-2-2 and comes back to the throw-in spot.

I have been assuming, I now think wrongly, that, if, no violation of 9-2-2 occurs because the ball hits a player legally out-of-bounds, the violation is is a breech of 9-3-1, which mandates the ball be thrown in from the spot it goes out. But I now think you're right, it's a violation of 9-2-10, and should come back to the spot.

Hmmm. I've either been wrong, or, if right, am going soft. This is not good!

You're wrong now, you were right. If A1 throws the ball in and B1 is the first to touch the ball, and does so while she has OOB status, are you giving the ball to B at the spot of the original throwin? Will you give it back to A at the spot of the throwin? No, you give it to A at the spot where B1 was standing OOB.

The only time the ball is taken out at the spot of the throwin is on a throwin violation. As soon as the ball is touched by any player on the court, the throwin is successful. That player is then responsible to be in bounds, and is guilty of the violation.

Put the ball in play where the violation occurred.

B never touched the ball. A1 (with end-line throw-in) passed the ball to A2 (passed the mid-court line) who was standing out-of-bounds.

No matter if you tag the violation to A1 or A2, Team A gets the violation. A violation under rule 9-2 (something).

After reading Snagwell's post, I agree that the violation was the receiver of the pass(A2), not the passer (A1) because of the wording in 9-2-2. 9-2-2 was not violated. The ball was passed by the thrower directly on the court from out-of-bound so that it touches, or is touched by another player(inbounds or out-of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched. But 9-2-10 was violated by A2.

When there is a throw-in, shouldn't we look at the rules that cover throw-ins? This is not a regular, ball-in-play OOB situation. This is a throw-in. Those rules are covered under rule 9-2.

My point was that 9-2 was violated by TEAM A. Looking at the bottom of Section 9-2, it says:

"Penalty: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the vioation or the technical foul occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponets for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot."

It's an end-line throw-in (after a made basket). Completion of the throw-in is not the issue. Like it was in the thread last week. No change of A-P arrow either way.

Although we don't have enough information becuase we weren't there. In my mind, the coach was trying to stretch the end-line rule 7-5-7, and steal a couple of seconds from the clock, by throwing to their own player who was standing OOB past the division line. But, even if the player just had his/her foot on the boundry line, that player is OOB (on the throw-in play)

It is a violation of rule 9-2. The penalty for violating this rule (any article of the section) is covered under the penalty paragraph under rule 9-2 (page 56, in the book, right before Section 3)

It is a throw-in for team B at the original throw-in spot.

That was the way that I was reading it.

Wait a second? This is an endline throwin, as in A had the right to run the line? Let me get this straight.

A1 grabs the ball and heads out of bounds after a made basket, presumably to throw the ball in. He throws the ball to teammate, A2, who is also standing out of bounds.

This is a legal play. A2's only requirement is to either be in bounds or out of bounds. If he's out of bounds, his foot can be on the line and he remains out of bounds. Still legal, no violation.

Why are you calling this a violation?

Time2Ref, consider 7-5-2, which orders that " . . . After <b>any violation, as in 9-2 through 10 and 9-13</b> [emphasis added], the official shall place the ball at the disposal of an opponent of the player who committed the violation for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation."

I think we agree that in the original problem the throw-in provisions are not violated by the thrower, but, rather, by the player out-of-bounds.

It appears to me there is some inherent contradiction between 7-5-2 and 9-2-10, and that the penalty 9-2 (Section 2) needs revision.

[Edited by assignmentmaker on Feb 9th, 2006 at 02:43 AM]

It looks to me like there are a few different situations we need to understand here.

End line throwin, after a made basket. A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 may all be out of bounds and can play hot potato with the basketball. They get 5 seconds total before it needs to be released onto the court. If A1 releases the ball right before the 5 second count is up, and A2 catches it while still OOB, you have a 5 second violation.

2. End line throwin. A1 throws the ball to A2 who catches the ball while straddling the sideline. OOB on A2, B's ball where A2 was standing when he caught it.

3. Spot throwin, but otherwise like #2. Same result.

4. Spot throwin, A2 throws the ball to A2 who catches the ball, mostly in bounds, but with his foot on the OOB same endline as the throwin. Same result as #2 and #3.

5. spot throw-in. A1 throws to A2, who is standing completely out of bounds along the same line as A1. This is a violation on team A for having a 2nd player OOB on a spot throwin. However, I'm not sure where the ball gets put into play. I gotta find the rule book

Snaq: I may have lost track of the 'original problem'. If so, sorry!

I am solely trying to address the issue of what happens when a ball inbounded on any throw-in, from any boundary, is first touched by a player out-of-bounds. The ball may or may not have struck the floor inbounds. I don't think it makes any difference. In both cases, the throw-in is complete, the player out of bounds while touching or being touched by the ball has violated, and the throw-in is at the spot of the violation.

I think, I hope, my previous post shows why - and why there is some internal fuzziness, if not outright contradiction, in the rules.

assignmentmaker.

Bingo. Showing me 7-5-2 was like a light bulb coming on over my head.

Using my own logic "When there is a throw-in, shouldn't we look at the rules that cover throw-ins?."

I can see that I was wrong. Rule 7 is the rule covering a throw-in. Rule 9 is to cover violations. ("Rule 9 Violations and Penalties" "Rule 7 Out of Bounds and the Throw-in")

As you stated, 7-5-2 CLEARLY states "After any violation, as in 9-2 through 10 and 9-13, the official shall place the ball at the disposal of the opponet of the player who committed a violation for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation".

It even references 9-2.

It does bring up a question as to why that penalty (section 2) wording is in there. That might be a good topic for another thread.

I change my vote. (where is Chuck? I think I could use that hug now. LOL)

Original situation.
Put 4.6 seconds on the clock
Ball awarded to team B for spot throw-in where A2 caught the ball.

OK. Now I am completly confused. COMPLETELY CONFUSED. The more I read, the more confused I get.

Two things:
1) I seem to be digging myself into a hole here. (Someone, please take the shovel out of my hands)

2) It's a good thing that we make these calls instantaneously. Otherwise, that 4.6 seconds will never expire. (those poor folks have been at this game for 3 days now. LOL)


I will spend more time today looking at 9-2 and 7-5. When I get home, I will probably write some more stupid stuff on the forum.

Learning is fun. But it is also tough.

Believe me, I sympathize. Being logical about language requires 'tokenizing' - and when the tokens we are directed to create don't fit together . . . BAH! YETCH!

As I hope I made clear, I just <i>think</i> I'm right in my analysis here - I'm not betting my . . .