In Bounding the Ball

[grunewar]

Situation: Rec League B11-12 (they're short, which is important).

A1 is inbounding the ball on their own baseline after the ball went out of bounds off B. Ball is properly handed to A1 out of bounds at the lane extended. A1 is trying to lob the ball to A2 (who is taller than most 12 yr olds) right under A's basket (fan shape). Ball hits the netting and underside of the rim on A's basket directly after throw in before touching a player in bounds. Ref's whislte the ball dead and turn it over to B under A's basket.

Correct call?

Situation 9.2.2 A is as close as I can find to say it may be legal and play should have been let continue. But that situation discusses the backboard. Thoughts?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Thoughts?

A common myth. I even called it a violation once.

[Nevadaref]

It sounds like the official either saw the play differently or got a couple of rules confused.

The ball merely striking the basket (defined as the ring, its braces and flange, and the net per 1-10-1) on a throw-in pass is not a violation. The front and side edges of the backboard, plus the basket are all inbounds. So the ball hitting any of these would not cause it to be out-of-bounds.

However, the officials may have felt that the thrower caused the ball to enter and pass through the basket from below. That is a violation per 9-4.

Or the officials may have confused the rules which prohibit a throw-in pass from entering the basket directly or lodging between the ring and backboard or coming to rest on the flange with the ball merely striking the basket on a throw-in.

If the play happened exactly as you described, then it was legal and no whistle should have been blown.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

This play is very similar to a play that happened in a boys' H.S. varsity game here in NW Ohio about thirteen years ago.

The score is tied with less than one minute to play. Team H(ome) is going to have the ball for a throw-in on its endline oppostite the S(corer's)T(able). The court has rectangular (the 4ft by 6ft type) backboards. H1 released the pass toward a player on the ST side of the court. The pass hits the underside of the backboard and rebounds onto the court away from the endline. H2 recovers the pass and attempts a layup which was successful.

Now here comes the good part. V-HC requests a timeout for a correctable error. V-HC claims that the underside of the backboard is out of bounds and that Team H had committed a throw-in violation. But wait, it gets better. The officials agreed with V-HC. The officials canceled H2's field goal; then charged H-HC with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct (Who would have guessed that he would have been upset about the officials' decision.). Team V made the free throws and won the game.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

This play is very similar to a play that happened in a boys' H.S. varsity game here in NW Ohio about thirteen years ago.

The score is tied with less than one minute to play. Team H(ome) is going to have the ball for a throw-in on its endline oppostite the S(corer's)T(able). The court has rectangular (the 4ft by 6ft type) backboards. H1 released the pass toward a player on the ST side of the court. The pass hits the underside of the backboard and rebounds onto the court away from the endline. H2 recovers the pass and attempts a layup which was successful.

Now here comes the good part. V-HC requests a timeout for a correctable error. V-HC claims that the underside of the backboard is out of bounds and that Team H had committed a throw-in violation. But wait, it gets better. The officials agreed with V-HC. The officials canceled H2's field goal; then charged H-HC with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct (Who would have guessed that he would have been upset about the officials' decision.). Team V made the free throws and won the game.

Lah me. A retroactive violation. Did the officials get disciplined for this one, Mark?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Lah me. A retroactive violation. Did the officials get disciplined for this one, Mark?

JR:

Surely you jest? You forget that this is Ohio. Those officials are still officiating varsity basketball in Ohio.

MTD, Sr.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Or the officials may have confused the rules which prohibit a throw-in pass from entering the basket directly or lodging between the ring and backboard or coming to rest on the flange with the ball merely striking the basket on a throw-in.

If it lodges between the ring and backboard, then it is a jump ball but the same team would inbound because the throw-in was never completed, correct?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

If it lodges between the ring and backboard, then it is a jump ball but the same team would inbound because the throw-in was never completed, correct?

No, it's a violation because the thrower failed to throw the ball so that it touches another player on the court.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

If it lodges between the ring and backboard, then it is a jump ball but the same team would inbound because the throw-in was never completed, correct?

Wrong. Violation. See case book play 9.2.8. Note that they lose the arrow too if it was an AP throw-in.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

If it lodges between the ring and backboard, then it is a jump ball but the same team would inbound because the throw-in was never completed, correct?

It's a throw-in violation and that team loses the throw-in (and AP arrow if the throw-in was due to the AP). The opponent gets a throw-in from the original throw-in spot.


9-2-8 . . . The thrown ball shall not become lodged between the backboard and ring or come to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.

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

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's a throw-in violation and that team loses the throw-in (and AP arrow if the throw-in was due to the AP). The opponent gets a throw-in from the original throw-in spot.


9-2-8 . . . The thrown ball shall not become lodged between the backboard and ring or come to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.

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

Thanks. I was extending what I remembered if the thrower puts the ball across the line and is tied up by a defender - jump ball but the same team throws it in (6.4.5B); so if the thrower throws the ball in and a jump ball results in whatever fashion, then the possession changes.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

Thanks. I was extending what I remembered if the thrower puts the ball across the line and is tied up by a defender - jump ball but the same team throws it in 6.4.5B; so if the thrower throws the ball in and a jump ball results in whatever fashion, then the possession changes.

No. It's not a held ball when the thrower lodges the ball, it's a violation. The thrower violates. That's why he loses the arrow.

If the throwin is touched by a player inbounds after being released, then the throw-in has ended. It makes no difference what happens next, the arrow is changed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

Thanks. I was extending what I remembered if the thrower puts the ball across the line and is tied up by a defender - held ball but the same team throws it in (6.4.5B); so if the thrower throws the ball in and a held ball results in whatever fashion, then the possession changes.

What BktBallRef said is correct, but I think that you have more or less got it.

Since you did say that the possession arrow with change when a held ball results after the throw-in ends, you were correct because a throw-in violation obviously doesn't result in a held ball. Just make sure that you don't mistake this particular throw-in violation for a held ball situation, which is what this would be if it were not for it happening during a throw-in (or when a FT is to follow = 1st of 2 shots or foul on a try which lodges [in those cases the lodging is ignored]).

PS
I corrected your terminology a tad because a held ball is what causes the AP arrow to be used, while a jump ball is what takes place at the start of the game and each extra period in the center restraining circle.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It sounds like the official either saw the play differently or got a couple of rules confused.

The ball merely striking the basket (defined as the ring, its braces and flange, and the net per 1-10-1) on a throw-in pass is not a violation. The front and side edges of the backboard, plus the basket are all inbounds. So the ball hitting any of these would not cause it to be out-of-bounds.

However, the officials may have felt that the thrower caused the ball to enter and pass through the basket from below. That is a violation per 9-4.

Or the officials may have confused the rules which prohibit a throw-in pass from entering the basket directly or lodging between the ring and backboard or coming to rest on the flange with the ball merely striking the basket on a throw-in.

If the play happened exactly as you described, then it was legal and no whistle should have been blown.

Or the official simply does not know the rules, as is the case with plenty of rec ball officials. Generally they make up their own when they "think" something is amiss.