Are you sure the ball is dead? If the ball is dead, shouldn't the clock be stop? Not really trying to debate anything here, just adding food for thought to the discussion. I am surprised to learn there is no offense or defense on a throw-in. I'm not disagreeing with JR, I'm just surprised to learn.

Yes, the ball is dead. I don't have my rule book to quote, but it's under definitions, I believe. Any contact foul during this brief time should be ignored. If it can't be ignored, it is considered an intentional technical foul.
It's the dead ball period that allows the team that made the basket to legally request a timeout.

And there is no requirement for the clock to stop during a dead ball, just as there is no requirement for the clock to start during a live ball. Example, the ball is live during a throwin, even before the clock starts. The ball is live on a free throw, even before the clock starts.

Substitution rules also indicate that subs must be made during a dead ball while the clock is stopped. This is why players may sub after a made free throw but not after a made field goal.

Who is he defending against?

Can he obtain and maintain legal guarding position?

No

Can he be considered to be closely guarding A1?

No

So you'll now tell me that B1 is not *guarding* but he's a *defender*.

Where - except for the rules related to guarding opponents - is the concept of defender or defense explored in the rule book? Go ahead and read 7-5 and you'll see that not once is the word "defense" or "defender" or "offense" mentioned. Not once.You can't.

I suspect you know this already but player control cannot occur without team control. No team control = no control by anyone under the rules.

And (I suspect you know this already) under the rules there's no such thing as just plain contol.

btw M&M, I really prefer Valencias.

The ball becomes dead every time a basket is scored. The clock doesn't stop on made baskets.

You can't make a definitive statement that the clock is always stopped when the ball is dead. That's wrong, rules-wise.

Well, I didn't know that, and fifth grade was the happiest three years of my life.

And the reason is that an official can refuse a <b>request</b> for a TO.

So, is B1 still a defender after the throw-in pass is deflected? My original stance was that either team could secure control after a deflection and come down anywhere. The new case tells us that this is not true for team A. Now we know for certain that the throw-in exception does not apply. Does the
"defensive player" exception apply? If I understand correctly, Tony says it does and JR says it does not. Now what do we do?

As much fun as it would be to disagree with Jurassic :D, I must agree with him.

That list in parentheses is a list of the types of players who are on a team that is not in control. A defensive player clearly not in control but in a jump ball and a throwin neither team is in control....so all players are covered during those times. It is NOT suggesting that a anything about who a defender is.

During a throwin, the thrower has possession of the ball but not control.

I do agree that there is an offense and a defense during a throwin.

There is a definition of control....two of them in fact. Player control and team control. The thrower may have possession but not control.

Make popcorn. Watch the fur fly. Yell, "Hit 'im again!" occassionally. :D

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Timeouts may be granted, by rule, when requested by the team whose player is either in control or has the ball for a throwin; or (and this is key) when the ball is dead. After the basket and before the throwin team secures the ball (and the 5 second count begins), the ball is dead, thus allowing either team to request timeout.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Yep, absolutely sure. ;)

RULE 6
SECTION 7 DEAD BALL
The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
ART. 1 . . . A goal, as in 5-1, is made.

Just so that we don't lose sight of the crux of the debate in this thread, here are two plays in which an official needs to know if B2 should be classified as a "defensive player" and thus would be granted "the defensive exception" to the backcourt violation.

1) Throw-in for Team A near the division line in their backcourt (Team B’s frontcourt).
A1’s throw-in is deflected by B1 who is applying direct pressure on A1. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

2) A1 steals the ball from B1 and races down the court on a fast break. A1 attempts a lay-up, but B1 who is running hard while trailing the play is able to catch-up and block the try for goal. The ball rebounds hard off the backboard and bounces out to the division line. B2 jumps from his frontcourt, catches the ball while in the air, and lands in his backcourt.

The crux of the debate on play #1 was settled when the new case play was issued. Play #2 was always straightforward.

The problems remains that you do <b>not</b> understand it correctly. The new case tells you that it's illegal for <b>both</b> teams. Tony is <b>not</b> saying that B1 is a defensive player with regards to the exception. Tony was and has been saying that the throw-in <b>ended</b> with the tipped ball, and the exception in 9-9-3 also ended when the throw-in ended. Therefore, when the throw-in ended, you had a loose ball without player or team control having been established. The first player to gain player control of the loose ball will now become an offensive player, and the exception does not count for offensive players. You and Nevada were arguing differently- from last November to the present. The new case play asserts that Tony was correct.

From the new case play--<i>"The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball."</i> That's all you have to know.

Tony and I were arguing whether there is an "offense" or "defense" <i>per se</i> <b>during</b> a throw-in.

What Tony and I(and others) were arguing was nothing but semantics, and those semantics are basically completely irrelevant to the correct call on the play being discussed.

Oooohhh...cool. I'm arguing semantics...

pssst...M&M...what's a semantic??

So if it was not pertaining to the defensive player exception in 9-9-3, what was the significance of whether there is a defense on the throw-in or not?