BktBallRef was right!! (Sorry, Nevada)

[Old School]

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Let me get this straight.

If A1 has control of the ball for a throw-in, then B1 is NOT a defender? I wonder WTF he's doing then?

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.

The single word "control" is defined in the rule book? Where can I find it?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

Are you sure the ball is dead? If the ball is dead, shouldn't the clock be stop?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If I'm standing OOB and holding the ball, then I have control of the ball. It's not team control or player control but I am controlling the ball. Any 5th grader would know that.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Mark's point is simple. Only the officials can "call" a timeout. They do so only after the team "requests" it. Common usage doesn't differentiate between "request" and "call" when it comes a timeout, and it may seem like an exercise in silly semantics, but the rules make a distinction for a reason.

And the reason is that an official can refuse a request for a TO.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

During a throw-in, the thrower has control of the ball. It has nothing to do with team control or player control. A defensive player is a member of the opponent of the thrower.

The fact that there's no team control during a throw-in does not mean that one team is not on defense.

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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

1) Kinda handily forgot about the words in red didn't you? You know--"during a ...throw-in"? The rules don't say anything about who's a defender at that time, and the rules also never state when a player becomes a defender. If the FED hadda thought that there were "defenders" during a throw-in, then why did they add those additional words instead of just leaving it at "defensive player"? I read that sentence as saying that there are NO defensive players during a throw-in, which blows your whole postulation all t'hell. Good try.

2) Your opinion only.....I disagree.

3) Your opinion only.....I disagree.

4) Your opinion only.......I disagree.

Btw, I also ain't gonna argue this one for too long. It's not really germane to the call and I don't know really of any cases off the top of my head where it is even relevant.
.

As much fun as it would be to disagree with Jurassic , 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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

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

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

The problems remains that you do not understand it correctly. The new case tells you that it's illegal for both teams. Tony is not saying that B1 is a defensive player with regards to the exception. Tony was and has been saying that the throw-in ended 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--"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." That's all you have to know.

Tony and I were arguing whether there is an "offense" or "defense" per se during 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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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??

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Tony and I were arguing whether there is an "offense" or "defense" per se during 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.

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?