Question 4

[MidMadness]

A-1's pass is deflected out of bounds by B-1. The official is ready to administer the throw in but team A is huddling and no player is available for the throw in. Official places the ball on the floor and statrts the 5 second count. Is the official correct?? I say NO, because this is not ROP situation..This would be a technical foul?? Do you concur??

[Splute]

Originally Posted by MidMadness

A-1's pass is deflected out of bounds by B-1. The official is ready to administer the throw in but team A is huddling and no player is available for the throw in. Official places the ball on the floor and statrts the 5 second count. Is the official correct?? I say NO, because this is not ROP situation..This would be a technical foul?? Do you concur??

Why do you think it should be a T?
I believe ROP can be used for throw-in situations per 4-38.

[MidMadness]

Last years rule book doesn't word it the same way. But you are absolutely correct, it does say that in 4-38. Sorry and Thanks

[Splute]

MidMadness,
Never take my comments as gospel... I am still learning also. I was just curious why you thought it would be a T. Some new officials tend to think many situations are immediate Ts, such as untucked uniform. I thought perhaps you were thinking of a second delay warning, which would be a T.

[jer166]

I do not see a delay situation here. Why do you think this is a technical foul?

Rule 7-5-2a states the official shall place the ball at the disposal of...

Case 7-5-1 Situation B covers this one. After waiting a reasonable amount of time, place the ball on the floor and begin the count.

[Camron Rust]

RPP doesn't apply...but that doesn't mean you don't put the ball down and count. When A is due a throwin, you are to either hand them the ball or make it available for the throwin. It's up to team A to get someone to the spot to make the throw in.

Originally Posted by MidMadness

A-1's pass is deflected out of bounds by B-1. The official is ready to administer the throw in but team A is huddling and no player is available for the throw in. Official places the ball on the floor and statrts the 5 second count. Is the official correct?? I say NO, because this is not ROP situation..This would be a technical foul?? Do you concur??

No. True it is not an ROP situation. The mechanic (no book available for reference) is to set the ball on the floor and begin the five count.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

RPP doesn't apply...but that doesn't mean you don't put the ball down and count. When A is due a throwin, you are to either hand them the ball or make it available for the throwin. It's up to team A to get someone to the spot to make the throw in.

In reading rule 4-38, it seems to include throw-ins as RPP. When you go to 7-5-1, it is not as clear. Both of these are changes from last year (I believe). I think everyone is still working under the previous thoughts that RPP is only applied after T.O.'s & intermissions. However, I do not immediately get that from reading these rules. As you state you can employ this method regardless, imo. Hopefully common sense is also used here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Splute

In reading rule 4-38, it seems to include throw-ins as RPP. When you go to 7-5-1, it is not as clear. Both of these are changes from last year (I believe). I think everyone is still working under the previous thoughts that RPP is only applied after T.O.'s & intermissions. However, I do not immediately get that from reading these rules. As you state you can employ this method regardless, imo. Hopefully common sense is also used here.

See case book play 7.5.1SitB.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

No. True it is not an ROP situation. The mechanic (no book available for reference) is to set the ball on the floor and begin the five count.

4-38 says this is an ROP.

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

4-38 says this is an ROP.

If you read 4.38 further it says "as in 7.5.1". Then 7.5.1 states specifically after a TO or intermission.

I think this is confusion to many of us. More comments welcomed. By putting the ball on the floor during a simple dead ball OOB situation isn't that the ROP procedure in essence? So why the distinction about TO and intermission?

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

If you read 4.38 further it says "as in 7.5.1". Then 7.5.1 states specifically after a TO or intermission.

I think this is confusion to many of us. More comments welcomed. By putting the ball on the floor during a simple dead ball OOB situation isn't that the ROP procedure in essence? So why the distinction about TO and intermission?

I believe that 7-5-1 is clarification that ROP is also applied after time-outs and intermissions, not exclusively after time-outs or intermissions.

Rule 4-38 is as follows:

The ROP procedure is used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available OR following a time-out or intermission as in 7-5-1 and 8-1-2. The procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations.

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSRef07
If you read 4.38 further it says "as in 7.5.1". Then 7.5.1 states specifically after a TO or intermission.

I think this is confusion to many of us. More comments welcomed. By putting the ball on the floor during a simple dead ball OOB situation isn't that the ROP procedure in essence? So why the distinction about TO and intermission?

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

I believe that 7-5-1 is clarification that ROP is also applied after time-outs and intermissions, not exclusively after time-outs or intermissions.

Rule 4-38 is as follows:

The ROP procedure is used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available OR following a time-out or intermission as in 7-5-1 and 8-1-2. The procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations.

Where were you guys during this thread?

Figuring out the RPP revision

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

On the other hand perhaps this was just a typo. Perhaps the word "or" is extraneous in the text of 4-38 and just slipped in there: "...make a thrower available or following..."

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think that 4-38 has a typo (the extra "or") you mention.