Throw In Violation?

[JoeTheRef]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

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.

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.

After a score by Team B, A1 has disposal of the ball for a throw-in. A1 starts a throw-in to A2 but notices that A2 is defensively covered. While losing his/her balance, A1 passes the ball along the endline. A1’s forward momentum carries him/her onto the playing court. A1 leaves the playing court, returns out-of-bounds and recovers the ball along the endline. Is this legal? RULING: No. A1 failed to pass the ball directly into the playing court, nor did A1 pass the ball along the endline to a teammate. When A1 touches the ball, he/she has violated the throw-in provisions.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

After a score by Team B, A1 has disposal of the ball for a throw-in. A1 starts a throw-in to A2 but notices that A2 is defensively covered. While losing his/her balance, A1 passes the ball along the endline. A1’s forward momentum carries him/her onto the playing court. A1 leaves the playing court, returns out-of-bounds and recovers the ball along the endline. Is this legal? RULING: No. A1 failed to pass the ball directly into the playing court, nor did A1 pass the ball along the endline to a teammate. When A1 touches the ball, he/she has violated the throw-in provisions.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The fact that the thrower went inbounds and then came back out seems to be of no consequence to the ruling at all.

Then why is it included in the play?

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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

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

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Wrong.

This is because under both rules sets travel rules are not in effect during throw-ins, ever.

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!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

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.

[OHBBREF]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

Just a suggestion I would leave the term traveling out of any explanation regarding a throw-in.

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.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.