Where is this a requirement? Are length-of-court passes not allowed, because A2 is not close to A1, who is throwing the pass?

Again, where is this requirement? If A1 throws the ball at A2, and A2 isn't looking and is not expecting the pass, does that mean it's no longer a pass?

If B does something that, by the rules, is a delay warning or T, is that fair to the other team to <B>not</B> call it?

Now, I may be willing to go along with you if I can see that there is definitely confusion involved with both teams. Remember, this in an endline throw-in for A, so at some point very recently B just scored. Why would you think there is some justification for B to think they get the ball again after they just scored?

There will be a 5-second violation on A at the end of my count.

Why is it clear that team A is confused? It could very well be a set play, and unless there's something specifically illegal, you have no basis for stopping it.

Nothing. They haven't done anything wrong as long as it's not a spot throw-in. Are you going to call a violation on A1 for a spot throwin if he sets the ball down and picks it back up?

The thrower isn't allowed to step onto the court before releasing the throw-in...A1 sets it down and goes inbounds, they can't go back and throw it in, IMO.

This rule applies to spot throwins only.
I don't have my rule book, but I'm pretty sure there's no rule that prevents the following scenario:

1. A1 grabs ball for an endline throwin.
2. A2 steps out of bounds and takes the ball from A1.
3. A1 runs in bounds and around some defenders, then back out of bounds on the other side of the lane from A2.
4. A2 throws a pass to A1, now standing OOB.
5. A2 passes inbounds to A3.

Likewise, nothing in the rules prevents a would-be thrower from going inbounds and then back out of bounds to get the ball during the endline throwin.

Yup, and the thrower <b>didn't</b> step onto the court before releasing the throw-in. If the thrower doesn't have the ball, then the thrower is no longer the thrower, as per 4-42-1. There is no rule that I know of that says that A1 can't set the ball down, go in-bounds, go back OOB and make the throw-in. That's perfectly legal as long as the thrower makes a legal throw-in within 5 seconds.

as long as it's not a designated spot throw-in. And no matter what A does, B still can't reach through the plane and touch the ball.

BlindZegra and Old School
 

Why is it, that whenever Old School is taking part in a thread, BlindZebra never takes part in the same thread. And when BlindZebra is taking part in a thread, Old School never takes part in the same thread.

Just something to think about.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Good night all.

Total BS.

I have on many occassions ripped him a good one.

Spend less time in your attic and more time paying attention before you spout off and look like a fool.

Just something to think about.:rolleyes:

Both of these statements are incorrect. The proof is in right there in the rules.

9-2-11 . . . No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins.

9-2-9 . . . The thrower shall not be replaced by a teammate after the ball is at the thrower's disposal, except as in 7-5-7.

The first rule clearly says designated-spot throw-in. There is no such rule for an end line throw-in. Thus A2 could step OOB and just stand there while A1 runs the end line and makes a throw-in pass. In fact, A2 could run OOB, back inbounds, and back out again during this time. There is nothing in the rules which prohibits it.

The second rule directly contradicts your second statement. The one you refer to as "common sense." :( Also please notice that this rule contains an unannounced change this season. The words in red did not appear in the 2006-07 rules book. It is obvious that the reason they were added is because people such as yourself were incorrectly applying this requirement to end line throw-ins. The prohibition is only for designated-spot throw-ins. The NFHS has gone out of its way this season to let people know that replacing the thrower is not illegal when the end line running privilege is in effect.

I think you're referring to the deuterocanonical books. ;)

And I thought the Council of Nicaea took care of all that.

Dan:

ROFLMAO :D

MTD, Sr.

NevadaRef:

With apologies to Monty Python\'s Flying Circus: And now for something completely different.

Where does this thread stand on your Original Post? LOL

MTD, Sr.