8th grade boys, 6 seconds left, game tied. B inbounding near division line across from table, and I'm trail. Before handing the ball to B1, I gesture along the line saying, "Watch the line, boys."

During the inbounds, which went to 4 seconds, A1 steps on part of the line after a pass fake from B. I judge it is inconsequential. B1 finally throws the ball in, A1 deflects it, A2 grabs it and sends it down to A3 who very nearly blows the layup, but A wins a close one!

How close to you all call the defender stepping on the line?

Also, in the 4th quarter, I "no call a foul" while A player is shooting. (I saw no contact.) The A coach yells, "Aw come one. You've been perfect so far. Don't blow it now!" I'm wondering if I should take this as a complement??? ;-)

Delay of Game!!!
 

That is a delay of game warning the first time and a technical the second. Have the inbounder stand about 2-3 feet off the line on a throw in and the defender will have no reason to be that close to the line. That will eliminate a lot of those instances.

If the throw-in had been on the endline while the clock was running and you felt the defender was willing to trade a warning just to stop the clock (perhaps they were behind by one point), then you can ignore it, by rule. Yeah - like some 8th grader would figure this out.

However, you had a spot throwin with the clock stopped. You should have given the warning.

I may (notice I said "may") change my mind if it was the second warning and the defender gained no advantage by the slight step on the line. After all, he didn't prevent the inbound pass, but was just reacting to a good fake from B1.

BTW - from the way you worded your post, it sounds like there might have been a 5 second violation.

Bard,

I have no problem with you "no calling" that. If he stepped on "part of the line," that's pretty darn close. You could have called the delay of game warning, but it sounds like you made a decent decision to me. One thing I like to do on a spot throw-in is remind the inbounder that they can "back straight up as far as they want."
As far as the coaches comment: It was probably a compliment...but I don't give much credence to coach comments unless the <b> losing </b> coach tells me and my partner that we did a great job <b> after </b> the game. :)

Z

So if the line is 2 inches wide and he steps on "part of the line" it is OK? What if the line is 3 foot wide is it still OK?

Sorry, but A1 is taking a advantage by moving closer than he should have. Bet if the foot was on the line the hands/arms were over the line...

First, I hate to have a defender A and an inbounder B - just not right! Please put the players in their proper roles ;)

This rule exists to potect the offense from overaggressive defenders reaching over the line and preventing the inbounds pass from being made, or causing a bad inbounds to be made. I would come down on the side of a no-call if the toe on the line <i>clearly</i> did not disadvantage B. RecRef, consider a situation where B1 totally fakes out A1 and turns to pass to wide open B2. Where has A taken unfair advantage? Sounds to me like they got fooled and B has an advantage. I would say this especially as the coach of B. In 8th grade boys, you have only so many inbounds plays. You may disadvantage B if they ran a good play (which A has now seen) and you make the toe on the line call. I have some special situational plays that will only work once, and I save them for a close game when I really need a score badly. They will only work once against a good team!

Complicating your life after no-call, A ends up with ball in your game. But if you felt at the time the lunge was made B was not disadvantaged in any way, I would think you still should not make this call. And I can't tell you how you know for sure, you just gotta go with what you see and live with it. But given that A1 subsequently tips the ball, I would be sure that the tip was clean and did not involve an early reach past the plane - and be ready to call it if A1 did violate to make that touch. Also, if B hesitated while A1 was on the line, A1 gained advantage (which may have helped him tip the ball subsequently) and the call must be made. In that case, B needs to be able to reset and have a new full 5 seconds to inbound.

Of course, in this situation you did not think A had gained an advantage so you decide to let B play on - not necessarily the wrong call, but it turns out looking worse with A stealing than if B inbounds to wide-open B2 for a lay-up. Just reflect and try to visualize the situation and make sure in your mind that there was no advantage gained on the initial step on the line. If you feel it was not, I think you made a good no call and B's turnover was in no way related. If you think that A actually may have gained an advantage, you now have a new perspective on judging advantage-disadvantage so you can make the correct call next time.

Was A1 on the end line when he deflected the ball?

Had he jumped after being on the end line and deflected the ball?

BTW, I would have issued the warning. It sounds like A gained a definite advantage by being that close to the thrower.

Also, for w_sohl, if the thrower has a wide OOB area, there's no reason to tell the defender to back up. He's entitled to be as close to the line as he can get without breaking the plane.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Also, for w_sohl, if the thrower has a wide OOB area, there's no reason to tell the defender to back up. He's entitled to be as close to the line as he can get without breaking the plane.

I understand this, it is just my experience that when an inbounder is this far back the defenders typically back off the line, kinda backwards if you think about it.

Where do you draw the line coach? :D If the foot is on the foul line after a shoot, do you let it go? If the dribbler's foot touches the line is it OK? How about when the heel comes down on the mid court line after frontcourt has been established? Should I let it go? How about the foot breaking the plane of the line on a foul shot, should I let it go?

No coach the lines are there for a reason and to let it go would be dishonest. Maybe one day I’ll do one of your games and I will let it go when the call is against your team. ;)

Many of the gyms around here do not afford the extra area OOB. Unfortunately, many of these gyms, also, do not have the 3-foot restraining line either. In fairness to the inbounder, officials are forced to "wave back defenders".

In such a case, yes. But that's not a given in all cases. That's why I said if the thrower has room to back up, then the defender should be allowed at the line.

<b>No coach the lines are there for a reason and to let it go would be dishonest. Maybe one day I’ll do one of your games and I will let it go when the call is against your team.</b>

RecRef: Come on...dishonest? Judgment yes (and we can all debate that), but it isn't dishonest. Do you call every thing you see in an 8th grade game? Considering the circumstances, I still say the right call was made. I wouldn't have a problem with a warning either...but I can certainly understand how you could ignore a toe barely on the line here.

Z

Here's the way I figure it: These defenders right at the oob line are always either leaning forward, or straight up. They NEVER lean back!! So if the toe is on the line, then the whole front of the body must be past the plane, since at best they are straight up. So even a toe slightly over is call for a warning. I can't see any point in letting this go. Except as Hawk's Coach says in the rare case where there's a very skilled in-bounder taking advantage of a less capable defender. And when you call it, be sure everyone hears you clearly as you explain that the next time ANY TEAM MEMBER DOES THIS, it will be a team technical. Not just A1.

I'm repentant
 

My thanks to all of you for the feedback. After reviewing the posts, I should have given the warning. I'll do better next time!

Someone mentioned that perhaps there was a 5 second call. I had chopped 4 when the inbounder released the ball. The foot was probably on the line around 3 seconds.

Thanks again!

--bard

I am not arguing that a violation which advantages a team that violates (foot on line then shot) should be ignored. OOB and a technical/warning for plane violation are two entirely different animals in my book. It has been stated on other threads that the "barely breaking the plane" violation is not called if it is not interfering with play, and that is merely how I was categorizing this. If you blow your whistle because inbound defender A1 has a non-consequential, unintentional toe on the line at the moment B1 releases a pass to B2 for the open lay-up, what purpose did that whistle serve? To grant A1 another try at defending B's inbounds play? Is that your intention? Note I clearly said that if there is a thought that B is disadvantaged, blow the whistle and warn or T up A (depending on whether previous warning has been issued).

I believe that complies with the spirit of the rule and does not disadvantage the team against whom this violation is supposed to have occurred. But it is always up to the individual ref whether or not a play always creates disadvantage, so you canblow it every time and not be wrong. I simply believe that you can choose not to call it and be OK, too.