Is this a T?
 

Following a goal by Team B, A1 collects the ball and steps OOB. He does not attempt to make a throw-in pass, but merely places the ball down on the floor and leaves. It is unclear why. Perhaps another teammate is supposed to come along, pick it up, and make the throw-in pass. However, in the meantime the official has begun the five-second count and B1, who is standing inbounds, reaches through the throw-in boundary plane and picks up the ball. He then attempts to score a goal.

The official sounds the whistle and:
1. gives a team delay of game warning for breaking the boundary plane.
2. gives a team delay of game warning AND a charges B1 with a technical foul.

Vote for #1 or #2 and give rules support.

I don't think B1 did anything to deserve a technical foul. I will probably go with A. What grade level are the players?

I'm voting for a technical foul.

If A1, standing OOB for the endline throwin, passes to A2 also standing OOB, and B1 reaches across and slaps the ball in flight, it's a technical foul.

I'm using that rule. :)

OPPS - I read the OP wrong. This scenario seems funny. I probably will not give a T to team B. As I said before, what is the age level of the players? Are any players from team A attempting to go oob and make a throw in?

While I might let this go with a warning below the jh level, I'm probably calling it at any level JH and above.

I'm leaning for a throw-in violation for failing to pass the ball directly onto the court.

7-5-7 a says: make a direct throw-in or pass the ball to a teammate OOB...putting the ball on the floor isn't passing and it isn't directly throwing the ball in.

I vote for #2.

It's going to be a technical. R 10-3-11 since the official started the five second count. The ball is in possession of the team entitled to the throw-in BY Team B reaching through and touching the ball it will be a player technical. It meets the requirement for player technical.

Wow, lots of different answers so far. BTW for those who care, let's say that this a boys HS varsity postseason game.

#2.

10-3-11 Reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch or dislodge the ball as in 9-2 Penalty 3.

There is no requirement that the ball be in physical possession of an A player, but a definite prohibition against reaching through the plane and touching the ball.

Finally someone who grasped why I wrote the first post in this thread.
BITS, have you checked the wording of 9-2 Penalty 3? Do you wish to stand by your underlined statement?

See Post #7

All I have here at work is the online rules, and I can't seem to find 9-2 Penalty 3. I'll look it up when I get home and let you know. However, as written, it is a little ambiguous whether "as in 9-2 Penalty 3" applies equally to both "touch" and "dislodge," or if it only applies to "dislodge." And not knowing what the penalty says, I have no context (yet) to help me decide that.

What does this have to do with the words in 9-2 Penalty 3?

"...and touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line (as in 7-5-7), ...)

Since 9-2 Penalty 3 explicitly says ...the opponent touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line... I'm going to go with a delay of game warning for breaking the boundary plane. :D

Follow-up question: reading the question, I don't believe it would be a technical foul if B reached across and batted a pass from A1 to A2 who was also behind the end-line...interesting...

Actually, what NevadaRef is getting at is, 9-2 Penalty 3 does in fact say "...and touches or doslodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line..."

And so, the correct call is, a warning for delay for breaking the plane of the boundary. Of course, if the team has already previously received a delay of game warning for any of the delay warnings, this becomes a technical foul.

Hmmm...I is idiot. Outside the boundary line does, indeed, mean someone outide the boundary line...

I originally misread your post. I stand corrected.

This is a wonderful example of how complicated the rules are written. 10-3-11 should specifically read it is a technical foul to reach through the plane and touch or dislodge the ball "while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line."

The shorthand reference "as in 9-2 Penalty 3" says exactly that.

My ruling...no technical foul unless there is a previous warning for one of the four delays.

No, you read it right - I misread the rule. In my head, I was thinking it stated passing it to someone inside the boundary, not outside. So, technical if it's in A's possession or being passed to A2 outside the boundary line.

If there were a teammate of A1 standing outside the boundary, and A1 put the ball down and stepped inbounds, and then A2 walked over and picked the ball up, would you call it a pass?

no.

4-31.

Not a pass.

I really don't like this loop hole. If A1 drops the ball and lets it bounce in place while A2 comes and gets it, it's a pass. If A1 sets the ball down so it will be sure to stay where he wants it while A2 comes to get it, I sure could consider it a pass.

BTW, a drop pass does not fit the definition of 4-31, either, yet it's a common tool for good point guards.

And, if this ball is rolling ever so slightly and slowly, it suddenly fits 4-31 and you need to call the technical anyway. I doubt the intent of the rule is for us to split this hair so finely.

It was not my intent to have people get hung up on debating whether or not this action constitutes a pass. Therefore, I will slightly change the play.

1. The throw-in is a designated spot throw-in, but Team A does not make a thrower immediately available so the official sounds the whistle and places the ball on the floor. B1 is confused and reaches across the boundary plane and grabs the ball.

2. The throw-in is a designated spot throw-in. The official hands the ball to A1 and he sets the ball down on the floor between his legs, but he is not touching the ball, and proceeds to give hand signals to his teammates for two seconds. When he starts to bend down to pick up the ball, B1 reaches across the boundary plane and grabs the ball.

I had situation 1 in a varsity girls game about 3 years ago. The teams were not very good. When I set the ball down and began my count the girl on defense thought it was a free ball and grabbed it. I stifled a giggle when she told me why she thought she could grab the ball. I did issue a delay of game warning to team B, and that move allowed team A to figure out "Hey, I am supposed to inbound the ball!" B were double losers - they got a delay warning and they alerted A to the fact they were supposed to throw in the ball. I remember all five girls from A wondering around on the court, none of them interested in throwing in the ball. I yelled White ball twice and then set the ball down. Team A, dressed in white were from a predominately black school while team B, dressed in black were from a predominately white school. Maybe that is what confused them???

1. Boundary plane violation.
2. Technical foul. I consider this possession for the purpose of this rule.

I agree with Snags. Tech because player reached through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch the ball before throw in count ended

Why not T in both situation? My line of thinking is once the ball is place on the floor it is at the disposal of thrower-in. The rule still apply right? Am I missing something?

For the very same reason as the original post here - the ball is not in possession of A1.

In both situations the ball is NOT in physical (holding) possession of A1. It's on the floor. In #2 only when A1 starts to bend down to pick it up is when B touches it.

I think I'd go with the delay warning. A better method (although no foundation in the rulesbook) might be to "T" the throwing team for being stupid enough to leave the ball unattended and lead us into a mess like that. :D

Well, the difference was that A1 had already possessed the ball before putting it back down. And I, personally, don't agree with that interpretation. I've got a delay warning in both cases, IMO.

Rule 11-4-2c ... doing anything that really annoys the official.

Hey, that's a new one. :D

Yea, that's only the Fed reference. I don't know NCAA or FIBA.

Same in NCAA, rule 11.

In FIBA, it's a metric reference, so I'll let Padgett covert it.

Is Rule 11 like the missing Books from the Bible? How do I go about receiving the latest copy...

I do not differentiate between case 1 or 2. Meaning to me they are both the same. In each case the ball was at the disposal of the thrower-in and in each case Team B crosses the boundary and grabs the ball. My immediate thoughts are a T. However, if I am bound by the word "possession" in the rule, then I am left with a delay on Team B or blow the play dead and start over.:)

"Possession" here isn't defined. If A1 sets the ball down for a moment, he's still in possession even if he's not holding it at the moment. To me, #2 is a T.

I'm still not sure on #1, so I'd probably just give the warning; unless A1 was about to pick the ball up, then I'd give the T.

Great. Now we have apocryphal rules?

I want to add:

3. gives a team delay of game warning for interfering with the ball following a goal...4-47-3


This is my take on this
#1 is not correct 9-2-10 The opponent of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundry... Since there is no thrower this rule can't be applied.

After reading the second situation submitted, I withdraw this statement and opt for the boundary plane warning based on the premise that a thrower does not have to be physically present to have a violation just as no thrower has to be physically present to have a 5 second violation.

#2 is incorrect. It is not correct to assess a T because in 9-2-10 penalty 3 the touching/dislodging must be while thrower is in possession of the ball or while the a pass to a teammate is being made.

Isn't possesion and disposal synonymous to one another?

I don't know. Good question. Why didn't the fed say "at the disposal of," or conversely, why didn't they say "while it's being held or passed?"

That has been my logic to this point. It seems we are getting to the point on this forum that if the rule doesnt say the exact wording that meets the exact situtation at that exact moment ...... then what applies? intent applies, advantage / disadvantage applies, case plays apply, similar rulings perhaps... why doesnt possession and disposal in this case? or does it?

Valid point you've made about the wording.

Agreed,

I can only speak for me. I know if I place the ball on the floor it's in possesion or disposal of the team. If they violate then the other team gets the ball and vice versa or get penalize appropiately.

I'm hitting this again for clarity now that I've had time to digest it.
I have to think the delay warning is best here. If the committee wants us to call this a direct T, they should change the wording to "disposal."

Here, I think A has possession, even he's not holding the ball.

Change it slightly: A1 takes the ball for the throwin and drops it straight down so it bounces several times. While it bounces, he makes his hand signals. Before he can grab the bouncing ball, B1 reaches over and grabs it.

I'm pretty sure I'd whistle this a T by instinct, and that I'd be right. A1 is in possession of this ball. It belongs to him until he releases the actual throwin pass. By rule, I can't find any basis to differentiate it from Nevada's 2nd situation above.

#1: delay of game violation.
#2: technical foul.

It's an endline throwin, there is no designated throwin spot, there is no designated thrower. A1 can give the ball to A2 and then release down the court to receive a pass.

Short answer to your question: No.

Ha thanks Snaqs.... read right over that.

Hey it gave me a good excuse to try out the delete button... works! :)

The rules still states that A1 must pass the ball directly onto the court or pass it to a teammate already OOB...A1 did neither, they put the ball on the floor with no teammate OOB or even moving to the ball OOB.

I'm handling this the same way I would if A1 was passing to A2 inbounds and the ball landed OOB...throw-in violation on team A for failing to pass it directly inbounds.

Can A1 roll the ball to A2? How is that intrinsically different than setting it down for A2 to pick up?
Can A1 bounce (dribble) the ball? How is that different than setting it down and picking it back up himself?

I vote for #2, and here is why:

1) I am going to issue an official warning to Team B.
See NFHS R4-S47-A1, R9-S2-A11, Penalty 1.

2) I am going to charge B1 with a technical foul.
See NFHS R10-S3-A6a.


I can understands BITS logic for wanting to use:
NFHS R4-S47-A1, R9-S2-A11, Penalty 3,
because one could infer that even though no player from Team A was in physical possession of the ball, it was at Team A's disposal when B1 reached thru the boundary plane and picked up the ball.

MTD, Sr.

What is the difference between the two situations?

1). The ball was place on the floor by the official.
2). Team A place the ball on the floor.

in both situations team b reach through and touched the ball. How can the same act have different interpretations on how to penalize?

To me, the difference is of "possession" which is required by rule. I can argue that A is in possession of the ball even if he has temporarily set it down next to his feet. I have a harder time making that argument when the official has set it down instead and no one from A has picked it up yet.

A1 didn't pass, roll, bounce, hand the ball to A2, A2 wasn't in the scenario at all that's the difference.

A1 didn't dribble, A1 didn't pick it back up, they left that's the difference.

You can make an argument to support any of the 3 warning, T, violation on team A...my stance is team A did not follow the throw-in provisions and that occurred before B1 picked up the ball.

In terms of common sense officiating blowing the cluster **** dead and getting a thrower OOB with the ball is probably the wisest choice.

I did not say there were two interpretations. I said that one could make the logical deduction that in this case the thrower could be considered in possession of the ball during a throw-in because the ball was at Team A's disposal for a throw-in. Both the NBCofUS&C and its successor organizations, the NFHS and the NCAA, have never made a ruling to my knowledge that defines this situation as a thrower being in possession of the ball while his team has the ball at its disposal. Therefore, it is a more logical to apply R9-S2-A11, Penalty 1 and NFHS R10-S3-A6a, than it is to use R9-S2-A11, Penalty 3, which requires the use of R10-S3-A11. The result is the same: team warning to Team B and a direct technical foul charged to B1.

MTD, Sr.

BZ:

In MHO, I suggest that you RE-read NFHS R7-S5-A7 completely, especially the last sentence of the article, as well as the rule that defines when a throw-in ends before you call a throw-in violation on Team A.

MTD, Sr.

I read it again and it still says team A may make a throw-in from anywhere along the end line and the thrower may make a direct throw-in...A1 didn't...or pass the ball to a teammate(s) outside the boundary...again A1 didn't.

The throw-in ending isn't germane to team A violating prior to the ball touching a player.

BZ:

When a throw-in, as in NFHS R7-S5-A7, is germane, more importantly, this is NOT a designated spot throw-in. NFHS R7-S6-A1 notes that NFHS R7-S5-A7 is an exception to only one player making the throw-in. NFHS R7-S5-A7 allows the following sceniaros:

1) All five (5) players from Team A are behind the endline. A1 passes the ball to A2, who passes the ball to A3, who passes the ball to A4, who passes the ball to A5, who passes the ball to A1 who then passes the ball to A3 who is standing inbounds. A1 released his pass to A3 before the five (5) second throw-in count expires.

2) A1 passes the ball to A2 who is behind the endline, after he passes the ball to A2 he steps inbounds. A2 sets the ball down on the floor behind the endline and steps inbounds. A3 then steps out-of-bounds, picks up the ball and passes the ball to A4 who is standing inbounds. A3 released his pass to A4 before the five (5) second throw-in count expires.

3) I could go on with more plays but I think you see my point, that this throw-in is not a designated throw-in and the rules allow the team who has the ball for the throw-in much latitude in making a legal throw-in.

MTD, Sr.

*Not knowing if I want to jump in the middle of this one*

This may again be one of those situations where may is an important word. Just because A may do those things doesn't mean those are the only two options...

Care to fix that? :D

BZ, unfortunately you are very incorrect about this. Team A has not committed a throw-in violation of any kind on this play.

A1 did not even attempt to make a throw-in pass. He doesn't have to. You cannot penalize him for having the ball touch the OOB area prior to the making of the throw-in pass. We certainly know that A1 can bounce the ball OOB prior to making the throw-in pass per 9.2.2 Sit D.

Furthermore, although 7-5-7 doesn't specifically state such, even you wrote that A1 could HAND the ball to A2. Notice that's also not throwing, batting, or rolling the ball to another player, which is how the definition of a pass reads.

Quite simply it would be silly to deem handing the ball to a teammate not a pass and thus a violation. There is no throw-in violation in this scenario by Team A. The only violation has been by Team B. The only question is whether a technical foul is also warranted.

I fixed it. See what happens when one becomes a bald old geezer. I can't wait for Mark, Jr. to pass his OhioHSAA basketball officiating class in December so that he can carry his "old man" on the court. :D

MTD, Sr.

This might be the most obscure post I've seen. And then someone posts that the play actually occurred during a game they worked!

What's the distinction between control and possession? How can a player possess a ball and not control it? Can you have player control but not team control? <--- Rhetorical questions, please don't answer.

This is confusing because the rule book uses common everyday words but defines them more narrowly than the general populace usually does. It would be clearer to the average person if the rule book had it's own terminology for control and possession.

I guess that's why Rule 4 is the most important rule to master. You need to learn to speak and think in NFHS and forget English.

My instinctive take is that if the official is using ROP, then the ball on the floor has to be considered in possession of the team that's supposed to be throwing the ball in. Conversely, the ball placed on the floor by the player is part of a pass. I'll have to read the definitions on all of these to be sure.

Thanks for a thought provoking discussion. I've had an epiphany.

AMEN!!

But it helps one think and research the written rules and cases. In the end, even if there is no consensus, one will not be in the dark if such a situation occurs in real life.

JimGolf:

Since this thread concerns itself with at game being played under NFHS Rules, all of my rule references will be NFHS. Rule 4 defines player control and team control. One will not find a definition for possession. The definitions of player and team control require that the ball be live and have inbounds court status. The ball is live during a throw-in but does not have inbounds court status. The word possession has traditionally been used when the ball has been placed at the disposal of a team for a throw-in. One can then say that once the ball is at the disposal of a team for a throw-in the team has possession of the ball and if a player from that team is holding the ball the player has possession of the ball, hence there is Team Possession and Player Possession.

MTD, Sr.

The pass allowed in 7-5-7...no matter how far you stretch the definition...must have A1 getting the ball to A2 for it to even remotely fit the provisions under the rule.

This is a common sense issue, the intent of the rule wasn't to allow A1 to sit the ball down and not have a teammate replace them as the thrower.

As I said earlier and it was lost...the best way to handle this is to do what you'd do if a thrower fumbled the ball...blow the whistle, kill it, and get the throw-in re-started.

How do you know A2 isn't going to come over and pick up the ball? If B1 doesn't reach through and grab the ball, do you still blow it dead and restart the count with a new inbouder? That would be quite unfair to Team B.

Team A may very well have a play that has A1 setting the ball down and B1 coming to get it. As long as it's all done in 5 seconds, I don't see any basis for ruling this a violation or for stopping it in progress.

I think we can agree that the definition of a pass is incomplete. If A1 sets it down for A2 to get, it's a pass. If he sets it down and picks it back up, he never relinquished possession.

Is A2 anywhere near the ball?

Is A2 making any effort to get the ball?

A new throw-in and count is a hell of a lot less unfair than a delay warning and/or T to team B, now isn't it?

This is a screwed up scenario...clearly team A is confused, team B doesn't know what is happening and may do something that will get them a T, not because of a purposeful act but because of team A screwing up their throw-in.

Since we are dealing what ifs, what are you calling if A1 sets the ball down, moves inbounds, A2-5 doesn't move to pick up the ball, team B doesn't reach across to touch the ball and A1 goes back OOB to throw it in?

Not in my opinion, as A hasn't violated any rule and B has. I'm calling a delay warning on B.

I'm going to move down the court with the ball and officiate the game.

Yeah, now that isn't unfair to team B.:rolleyes:

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.