Exactly. NFHS Rule 2-3. My favorite one in the whole book.

This was an intentional act. For me, I think this could fall under a similar case play at the end of a game. Interfering with the ball after a made basket is a delay of game warning. However, if done at the end of the game to stop the clock or to gain an advantage, it is an immediate T with no warning. I think a T for an unsporting act would be warranted.

This was an NCAA game, not a HS game. ;)

Peace

I realize that. I don't do NCAA games, so I was just citing the one I knew. Is there a similar rule in the NCAA book?

Actually the rule refenence is exactly the same. But this is not always the case.

Peace

hmm...
 

true we can blow a whistle for a "do over" on throw ins. but, the thrower didn't fumble the ball at all. he had possession of it. and i understand your point about the player being legally OOB.

certainly no easy answer other than the one that the official did. but, it certainly has made me think and i think made alot of us other officials think about it too.

thanks for everyone's input so far. i was just wondering what the correct call would be. and i'm still not sure a "do over" is the correct call. why not a throw in violation on the thrower for stepping into the court prior to releasing the ball on the throw in then???? i think i could justify that just as easily as you are justifying a "do over" call, don't you?

thoughts?

I know the play is different, I was only using the do-over as a precedent to show that blowing the whistle for a do-over isn't the crime you made it out to be previously. :)

Before you call this throwin violation, you would need to call the intentional foul on the defense (former shooter). If you're sure the player did it on purpose, then you could justify this call.

If you think the contact was incidental and did not cause the thrower to step inbounds, then you can make the violation call.

The only thing you can call from my estimation is an intentional foul. It does not fit the definition of a delay. The player was completely out of bounds trying to get back in bounds. The player did not reach across the line and disrupt the throw-in.

Peace

No violation. Technical foul. The player went sideways along the end line to make contact with the thrower instead of just returning straight back in-bounds like he was supposed to.

NCAA rule 10-3-18--"purposely delaying returning to the playing court after being legally out-of-bounds".

NCAA rule 10-3-21--"delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or preventing continuous play".

Your choice......

Wow, that is a stretch.

Peace

Why?

If you're going <b>sideways</b>, aren't you delaying returning? The player's momentum didn't take him sideways, for sure. He had to get up and run sideways.

And didn't he delay the game by stopping the ball from becoming live when he ran into the thrower?

I'm not saying that it <b>should</b> be called in this situation. I"m saying that it <b>could</b> be called.

That is a stretch. If you want to call that go right ahead.

Peace

Ridiculous application of the rule to this case. Not even worth discussing (but you knew that) This is the one that I was hoping no one would bring up. IMO if you judge the act to be intentional (I don't) then you have a good argument. But the way I saw that play A1 did nothing to go out of his way to make contact with B1. It just happened. Not saying it didn't benefit his team. Just saying I don't believe it was premeditated and intentional.

Dan, if you would replay that video a couple of times, study the offensive player. Look at the offensive player only.. Here's what I see, player falls to the ground, players eyes on playing court at all time, sees the ball about to be inbounded, player then darts up, side steps and throws his chest into B1. Damn, he even hesitated for a slight second before he threw his chest into the man. Then when the official blows his whistle, he still has his hands in the air with that dumba$$ "i didn't do it" look that we've all seen several times over our careers.

I've looked at about 10 times and I'm trying to give the player the benefit of the doubt, but the more I look at it, the more it looked intentional. It just didn't happen that way.

Joe, when I first looked at this I saw no intent at all. Not even a hint. But I looked at it again when someone else said it was done on purpose, and I agree it looked that way on replay. But at first viewing it looked innocent and I gotta give the benefit to the official on the floor who made the decision to do it over. He only got 1 view in real time in a real high pressure spot and I think he handled it perfectly.