Throw In Violation?
 

A1 has ball for a throw-in after a made basket. She gets ready to throw the ball in when a defender jumps the throwing lane in front of A2. A1 redirects her pass down the endline and the ball remains OOB. She retrieves the ball and completes the throw-in within the 5 seconds. Did she violate?? After coming down the court I told myself that she violated because she didn't throw the pass directly onto the court. But then I started to think that she can pass the ball OOB to a teammate after a made basket, the ball can slip out of her hands and remain OOB and she retrieve and complete the throw in, so did she really commit a violation? I don't have a rulebook at my disposal, and this was Girls 16U FED rules. Thanks in advance for any input and clarification.

Call it a fumble and don't second-guess yourself.

There has been some debate about this play on this forum before. JR and I can see no reason why the play is not perfectly legal under NFHS rules. However, there is an NCAA A.R. which states that this is a violation.

from NCAA BR-133:

A.R. 155.

Wrong.

As long as A1 (in the OP's play) did not come inbounds after releasing the ball she has violated nothing under ncaa rules. AR 155 is meant to show that the inbounder has violated when he steps inbounds and steps back out to recover the ball behind the endline. If A1 had stayed beyond the endline there would be no violation, just as under NFHS. This is because under both rules sets travel rules are not in effect during throw-ins, ever.

I don't agree with you, Dan.

The A.R. specifically states two reasons for calling a violation. Leaving the designated spot or the area behind the endline is not one of them. The fact that the thrower went inbounds and then came back out seems to be of no consequence to the ruling at all. The controlling action that the NCAA is focusing on seems to be that A1 threw a pass.

I believe that the following play would not be a violation under NCAA rules.
Team B scores a goal. A1 picks up the ball and steps OOB. A1 places the ball down on the floor OOB and then steps into the court. A2 runs OOB near the ball but decides not to pick it up, so A1 returns OOB and picks up the ball and completes the throw-in prior to the expiration of the alloted five seconds.

So far we've discussed 3 different plays. The OP's play, the AR and now your new play.

Only the AR play is illegal.

The wording of A.R. 155's RULING is poor. Dan is correct that A1 cannot retouch the ball because A1 stepped onto the playing court and that is the ONLY reason a violation has occured in A.R. 155. The thing to remember in A.R. 155, as well as in the Original Post, is that Team A's throw-in is a throw-in after a score by Team B. One must remember that this throw-in has different that a designated throw-in.

Keeping with the Original Post, somethings apply whether the throw-in is after a score (or awarded points) or a designated spot throw-in. 1) There is no player control during a throw-in. 2) There is no team control (NFHS) and there is team control (NCAA). But the key to this play is that there is no player control during a throw-in, therefore dribbling does not occur during a throw-in meaning that a player can "pass" the ball to himself as in the case of the play being discussed.

And finally, once again, whoever wrote the RULING A.R. 155, did not bother to read NCAA R7-S5-A8, nor did he bother to apply it correctly.

MTD, Sr.

Oh, wait.

Can I change my vote?

:p

Then why is it included in the play?

That's twice today you've screwed the pooch.

HEY!! That's illegal in most states...:eek:

You mean you can't do it more than once?

But not <b>all</b> states ......
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Animal/datewyom.jpg

Just a suggestion I would leave the term traveling out of any explaination regarding a throw-in.
There is no such thing as Traveling on a throw-in!

You broke your own rule, but thanks anyway.

Mark
I have to disagree completely with you here. The AR 155 specifically states after a basket by team B - and it is specifiacally a part of Rule 7 - S5-A8, a. which states: Any player of the throw-in team may make a direct throw in or may pass the ball along the end line to a team mate who is also out of bounds..

I can not see how you come to your conclusion.
I may be a little slow today help me out

Does that mean that the NFHS rulesmakers should delete case book play 7.6.2COMMENT? That NFHS case play says exactly what you are saying shouldn't be said.

I'm not MTD but I'll help you out.

The part that I left underlined is to differentiate between a pass to a team mate inbounds or OOB beyond the endline. It is not there to say that a pass *must* be only to a team mate when it's made beyond the endline (that's kind of redundant btw, since a pass by definition is to a team mate). And it does not invalidate the 1 thing we agree on, that no travel or dribble rules apply during the throw-in.

So...

1. You can pass the ball inbounds or OOB beyond the endline. If it goes inbounds you cannot be the first to touch.

2. You cannot violate travel or illegal dribble rules (ie so-called "self pass" as in the OP's play allowed)

3. You cannnot "pass" the ball, come in bounds the go back out & retrieve the ball in this case. Per the AR under discussion.

Allow me. See if you can find an NCAA or NFHS rule anywhere that says that it's a violation for the thrower on a non-designated spot throw-in to <b>fumble</b> the ball along the endline and then go and get it. That's what's happening in the play being discussed. AR155 simply isn't relevant.

They may want to consider doing so since no where in the definition of traveling is there any reference to a Throw-in -
While I do not have the rule or case book with me - I do not recall ever seeing traveling refered to in Rule 7 either. I may be wrong there - but the violation is leaving the spot - not traveling as it used to be.

You are wrong. Look in the "Throw-In" section, to find the "traveling" reference, not vice-versa. NFHS case book play 7.6.2COMMENT says <i>"Pivot-foot restrictions and the <b>TRAVELING</b> rule are <b>NOT</b> in effect for a <b>THROW-IN</b>".</i>

Your statement was <i>"Just a suggestion I would leave the term traveling out of any any explanation regarding the throw-in".</i>

The NFHS rulesmakers very, very obviously completely disagree with your suggestion above. The NFHS rulesmakers included the term "traveling" in <b>THEIR</b> explanation regarding the throw-on(their explanation being case book play 7.6.2COMMENT).

I agree you can Fumble the ball and go get it and pass it in bounds - however it can not be a pass.

JR you even say in your first response call it a Fumble an move on - so if you for some reason define it as a pass it has to be illegal,

I am not saying that you can enter the court and come back out of bounds either (I didn't intend that anyway) but Mark said the only reason was because of the reentry out of bounds and clearly the rule book says that is not the case.

Hmmm...

There's a case where A1 throws the ball in the direction of a teammate. the teammate isn't looking and moves away. A1 moves and recovers the ball after it hits the floor. The ruling is that this is a dribble.

Why wouldn't the same concept apply on the OP (except we couldn't call it a dribble, of course)?

Can you cite an NCAA or NFHS rule that states that's it's illegal to pass the ball along the end-line on an unrestricted throw-in and then go get it before a teammate touches it?

I can't.

JR
I refer to the Rule Book RULE 7 not the case book comment as far as refererence to traveling being in the RULE -
True - The traveling rule is not in effect - that IMHO references the fact that a player can still move both feet within the area during designated spot throw in without being subject to the same restrictions when they are in possession of the ball while on the playing floor.
The rule itself specifically states that you can run the end line after a basket without penalty so it would be redunundant at that point.
I will conceed the point son removing the word traveling from the Comment sice I did actually see a first year guy make that call early in the year.

How about <b>Rule</b> 4-42-6NOTE? That says <i>"Pivot foot restrictions and the <b>traveling</b> rule are not in effect on a <b>throw-in</b>."</i> Should the FED delete that reference to "traveling" during that explanation of a "throw-in" also?:)

Actually I can not either.

All I can do is use the AR 155 which says that it is illegal and give reasons why.

Of course this is never a pass because as I mentioned a pass is defined as moving the ball from 1 player to another. No such thing as a "self pass", no such thing as a travel or dribble violation during a throw-in, it's all perfectly legal unless you violate by coming inbounds & stepping back out with or without the ball. The AR under discussion covers the second of these 2 cases.

There's really no need to bring in other rules, it's all self consistent IMO.

Nope, and that is why I'm with you that this play should be legal in both NFHS and NCAA play, but someone made a poor decision to write an A.R. making it illegal in an NCAA game. That is the only reason that I can state that it is currently a violation in NCAA play.

It's not even consistent with the NCAA rules. That is the point JR is making.

Then I can assume that it is safe to say that anybody who really has a good knowledge of the NFHS and NCAA rules realizes that A.R. 155 is poorly worded and only applies to the part where A1 steps inbounds. AND that is not a violation for A1 to release the ball along the endline on the out of bounds side of the endline and recover it before it touches a teammate out of bounds along the endline.

MTD, Sr.

Nope, the A.R. specifically says that the violation is for not throwing the pass TO A TEAMMATE as well as failing to pass the ball directly inbounds. The ruling part of the A.R. makes no mention of the player returning OOB after stepping inbounds.
The way it is written it is plain as day that that is what the NCAA is saying.

...is there any other type of pass?

Well, maybe a pass to an opponent, but an opponent is not allowed to go beyond the endline in this play.

Anxiously awaiting your reply.

(Although it really doesn't make a difference. :shrug: )

Yes. Good assumption.

JR? Two points on JR:

1. Screw him

2. He's referencing NFHS rules, not NCAA rules

oh yeah, a third point

3. Screw him

1. I think that the NCAA A.R. is stupid and don't agree with it.
2. The NCAA A.R. is what carries the weight, not my opinion, not your's, not JR's. :)
3. I can only read what the NCAA wrote and it quite clearly says what the violation is for. If you don't like it, you will have to take up the issue with whomever wrote the A.R.

1) http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Animal/Shocked.jpg

2) Yeah, and Imo the NCAA AR isn't relevant or germane, and it doesn't say what Nevada thinks that it says anyway. Fwiw, I agree with MTD Sr.

3) Have you ever thought of having a short one instead?

What exactly of MTD's do you agree with? What he wrote in post #7 or post #31? Could you quote the specific part?

Post #31.<i></i>

Ok, in that case you are going to have to help me understand your position better.

Are you saying that you agree that stepping inbounds while not holding the ball during an endline throw-in and then going back OOB and touching the ball again is a violation? What rule is being broken?

While I concur that this action SHOULD not be a violation, the NCAA A.R. clearly states that it is (if the release was a pass and not a fumble). Are you agreeing with MTD that this IS not a violation or are you saying that the A.R. is silly and it SHOULD not be a violation?

I'm saying that the NCAA AR has got absolutely nothing to do with the play being discussed in the original post. The AR is neither relevant or germane. Apples and horse doodoo. The play in the original post is legal, under both NCAA and NFHS rules. Iow I don't agree with you that the AR has any relation at all with regards to the legality of what happened in the original post.

The AR discusses a unique situation--i.e. the thrower stepping in bounds and then back OOB while the ball is loose OOB- and then gives a ruling on that unique situation without really giving any reason <b>why</b> that particular unique situation is a violation. See Dan's post #4. MTD explained it further.

Quite simply, imo you're trying to apply an AR that isn't applicable. Understand now?

Only if you are a Cubbies fan.:D

Maybe I'll do that.

In the meantime I'll disregard your ill informed opinion.

So for you the single controlling element is that the thrower stepped inbounds and then returned OOB before making the throw-in pass. Interesting take. I don't agree with it, but it is interesting.

As for Dan's post #4, where can I find the provision that says that the thrower cannot step inbounds WITHOUT THE BALL and then return OOB to make a throw-in pass? As far as I know that isn't a rule.

What is your take on these two plays? Is either one a violation?

a) A1 and A2 are both OOB during a throw-in following a made goal and A1 has with the ball. A1 passes the ball to A2 and then A1 steps inbounds. A2 is unable to find an open teammate, so A1 returns OOB and A2 passes the ball back to him and A1 is able to release the ball on a throw-in pass directly into the court prior to the expiration of the five second count.

b) Following a made goal A1 has the ball OOB for the throw-in. A1 places the ball down on the floor OOB and then runs inbounds. He sees that no teammate is going for the ball, so he returns OOB, picks up the ball and completes a throw-in pass in under five seconds.

Both plays are legal imo under both NFHS and NCAA rules.

I agree. So what is this business about?
If that were true, then would play (b) above be a violation?

I have to conclude that it isn't a true statement.

Conclude what you want to conclude. I don't have a clue what that stoopid NCAA AR is saying. And I basically could give a damn less what the NCAA AR is saying. <b>IT DOESN'T MATTER!</b> And again(and again and again and....:rolleyes: ), the NCAA AR doesn't mean squat with regards to the original post. It's irrelevant. It's not germane. It's got nothing to do with anything. <b>IT DOESN'T MATTER!</b> That's what people are trying to get through to you, and it doesn't seem to penetrate that ossified material surrounding whatever is inside your head.

You are claiming that the NCAA AR makes the original post into a violation. No one agrees with you. No one! End of story. Cut to black.

Yes, I am claiming that if it took place in an NCAA game, the situation in the OP would be a violation solely due to what is written in A.R. 155.
You say no violation. Why?
Because there is one little, insignificant sentence in the setup of the play? Why do you focus on the thrower stepping inbounds in that description?
So the A.R. isn't a perfect match for the OP, but it is darn close! So close in fact, that it seems to be the best written ruling available on the play from the NCAA. (NFHS has nothing specific. We just have to look at the text of the rules. Of course, if we did that with the NCAA rules, we'd have to conclude that the play is legal.)
Now that is what you won't accept. Instead you either choose to fudge and say that the thrower fumbled the ball, when in fact he passed it, or continue to nitpick on some tiny detail, which is really the part that is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that some moron who as MTD said earlier can't read or correctly apply the NCAA rules, but happens to have a position of power within the organization, wrote a ridiculous ruling which is currently official. So we internet folks will just have to sit back and wait for it to get deleted by someone else who actually has power in the real world.

And yes, absolutely no one else agrees with you.

That means it's time to let 'er go. We're all just going around in circles now, repeating ourselves.

I have been climbing up into the attic the last couple of days to read old rules books and casebook plays.

I went through:

1) Rules books, casebooks, handbooks, and officials manuals, supplemental
rules interpretations, and mid-season bulletins of the following
organizations going back as far back as the 1971-72 season:
a) Nat'l. Bkb. Comm. of the U.S. and Canada (NBCUSC)/NFHS/NCAA
Men's & Women's
b) Nat'l. Assn. of Girls' and Women's in Sports (NAGWS).
c) International Federation of Basketball Assciations (FIBA).

2) Every copy of Referee Magazine going back to its very first issue and
every rules as well as every NASO publicatioin going back to when NASO
was founded.

3) Every copy of the IAABO Sportorial that I have ever received.


I have found the following things:

1) The definition of when a throw-in starts and ends has not changed over
the years.

2) When the AP Arrow is reversed was changed to its current rule no more
than a couple of years after the AP Arrow was adopted.

3) I could not find a single play like the one in the O(riginal) P(ost).

4) The Ruling in NCAA A.R. 155 is wrong. In fact there is no rule support
for the ruling made in A.R. 155.

Whoever in the NCAA came up with the ruling in A.R. 155 did not read the rules book. Furthermore, whoever wrote the ruling applied rules that apply to Designated Spot Throw-ins, not for Throw-ins After a Goal. The entire ruling is nonsense. This is just another example of a ruling being made withoug applying the rules.

MTD, Sr.

I agree with you 100%.
However, since that silly A.R. is in the CURRENT rules book and CURRENTLY is the official ruling. It would pretty hard to defend NOT calling it that way in a game.

NevadaRef:

I agreee with your last sentence but I could not in good concience enforce a ruling that is 100% wrong by rule.

MTD, Sr.