Rationale Please

[Just Curious]

Sitch A: On a throw-in, A1 throws the ball into the court but it rolls off the court untouched. Violation and Team B get the ball for the throw-in where A1 had it regardless of where it went OOB.

Sitch B: On a throw-in, A1 throws the ball into the court and is caught by A2 who is standing OOB along the sideline. Violation and Team B gets the ball for the throw-in where A2 caught it.

I don't see where there's a difference... In either case the ball was not directly thrown to a player on the court (In Bounds) before it ended up OOB. As I see it, OOB is OOB, whether it's touches the floor, wall, fan, official, coach, or player. What am I missing?

[Brian Watson]

The difference in the second sitch is the player caused the ball to go OOB at that spot. In sitch A, the thrower caused it to go out.

It is splitting hairs, but thems the rules.

[williebfree]

Another way to look at this is....

Sitch A: A1 (Inbounder) was the only one with player control of the ball. A1 caused the violation.

Sitch B: A2 gained control of the ball while IN & OOB. A2 caused the violation. Throw-in at the site of the violation.

Does this help?

[Lotto]

Yet another way to look at this:

NCAA Rule 9-3:
Section 4. Throw-in
Art. 1. The thrower-in shall not:
b. Fail to pass the ball directly into the playing court so that after it crosses the boundary line, it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the playing court before going out of bounds.

Hence the first situation describes a throw-in violation and the second doesn't. Where do we put the ball in play?

NCAA Rule 7-5:
Art. 2. When the violation is on a throw-in, the new throw-in shall be from the same designated spot as that of the original throw-in.

The second situation is a standard out of bounds violation, where A2 caused the ball to become out of bounds. It's not a throw-in violation because of Rule 9-3.4.1.b (see above). Hence the designated spot is determined by the position of A2.

[williebfree]

That was a thorough and accurate explanation. I do not have my books with me (Gasp ), So I made mine too simple...

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by williebfree
Another way to look at this is....

Sitch A: A1 (Inbounder) was the only one with player control of the ball. A1 caused the violation.

Sitch B: A2 gained control of the ball while IN & OOB. A2 caused the violation. Throw-in at the site of the violation.

Does this help?

Think about this again, willie. There's no player control during a throw-in, as in Sitch A.

For Just Curious-
In A, the thrower commits the violation, so we come back to the spot. In B, the player catching the ball commits the violation, the throw-in is where the ball is caught.

[williebfree]

Poor terminology perhaps.... BUT A1 is the player in possession, "control", of the live ball during the throw-in.

Your criticism is WARMLY accepted.

[Camron Rust]

To add to all the correct replies above....

Consider if instead of A2, it had been B2 that caught/touched the ball while OOB. Would the violation be on the thrower or the player who touches the ball while OOB? If it is a violation on the thrower, I, as a defender would try my best to get a foot OOB and touch the ball. Of course, this is not the case. It is a violation on B2. A's ball at that spot. Since there is no distinction between offense and defense on OOB violations, it must, in the original scenario, be a violation on A2 and the spot is where A2 touches it.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
To add to all the correct replies above....

Consider if instead of A2, it had been B2 that caught/touched the ball while OOB. Would the violation be on the thrower or the player who touches the ball while OOB? If it is a violation on the thrower, I, as a defender would try my best to get a foot OOB and touch the ball. Of course, this is not the case. It is a violation on B2. A's ball at that spot. Since there is no distinction between offense and defense on OOB violations, it must, in the original scenario, be a violation on A2 and the spot is where A2 touches it.

In your case, I would say it is a violation on B2. 7-2-2 states if B2 is OOB, "Such player causes it [the ball] to go out."

I could definately see the case for a violation on A1 - he failed to get the ball in-bounds. However, if B2 intentionally goes OOB, that could be a technical foul for leaving the court.

Any other thoughts?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by williebfree
Poor terminology perhaps.... BUT A1 is the player in possession, "control", of the live ball during the throw-in.

Your criticism is WARMLY accepted.

Willie - here's some more "warm" criticism. On a board such as this, people take you literally when you use a term like player control. I know - I've done stuff like that myself and people always "catch" it.

BTW - no one in either of the two situations had player control. Player control is defined as holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds. Neither player was inbounds. Why does this matter? Well, it doesn't too much, but let's say A1 is standing OOB ready to inbound the ball. In some convoluted way (although I can't think of a plausible one at the moment), he fouls B1 who is defending the inbound pass. If A1 had "player control", the foul would be non-shooting regardless of the bonus situation.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen an inbounder commit a foul in that situation, other than a technical.

BTW - Camron once was involved in a post that argued whether or not the clock should start if A1 inbounded to A2 who was standing with one foot OOB. Maybe he can revisit that.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

BTW - Camron once was involved in a post that argued whether or not the clock should start if A1 inbounded to A2 who was standing with one foot OOB. Maybe he can revisit that.

More precisely, the debate was not whether it should start but if it should be reset if it had been started.

The point I made was that timing errors are corrected when the time doesn't start or stop the clock as signaled by the officials. In this case, it is quite possible that the official administering the throwin and the one signaling the violation are not the same. As such, the timer will be observing the administering official for the "start clock" signal. The official will give the signal the moment the ball is touched. Since the player touching the ball is also OOB, the other official will be whistling the violation and raising the hand---instructing the timer to stop the clock. There will be some delay between the recognition of the whistle and the stopping of the clock (lag time).

So, the clock can properly start and stop with time elapsing on a play where the violation was simultaneous to the starting of the clock.

It is also possible that no time would elapse if it were the same official that administered the throwin and that observed the violation.