Awarding points on a throw in
 

Some senior officials got me thinking on a question tonight. How can a team be awarded points on a throw in? Thoughts, comments, and references.

Basket interference for touching the ball within the cylinder.

Or basket interference for touching THE BASKET while the ball is on or within the basket.

9.11.1 SITUATION D: The ball is on the ring of Team A's basket when A1 hits the net. RULING: Basket interference by A1. No goal. The ball became dead when A1 touched the net as it is part of the basket. (4-6; 6-7-9)

9.11.2 SITUATION C: Since it is a violation for thrower A1 to throw the ball directly into the basket from out of bounds, what happens if B1 touches the throw-in pass while the ball is in the cylinder above A's basket? RULING: B1 is charged with basket interference and a two-point goal is scored. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end lines as after a scored goal except the official shall place the ball at the disposal of a player of Team B for a throw-in from any point outside the end line. (9-2-7)

Seems that the fed is applying 5-1-1...that only a touched ball can be scored during a throw-in.;)

How do you get that from the case plays posted (or from any other source)? Note that 5-1 deals with "goals". BI is "awarded points"; it's not a goal.

It seems strange that the fed only cites the touching part of BI, when it's a violation for an untouched ball to pass through the goal per 5-1-1. One could argue that the ball must be touched for an awarded goal to count, because there is nothing about contacting the basket in the case play.

The other citation has nothing to do with the OP.

9.11.1 SITUATION D tells us that BI occurs without contacting the ball.

9.11.1 SITUATION C tells us BI can occur on a throw in. This is simply a consequece btw of the fact that BI can be called even when there is no shot. We all know a shot is illegal on a throw in.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I am simply pointing out that once again the way the fed puts the case play, that it is possible for someone to argue that the ball must be touched for the BI to be called during a throw-in.

We see play after play like this one, where a simple touches the ball or contacts the basket in the case play, would remove possible confusion that 5-1-1 could bring into the play.

Then again if they made the rules clear and the case plays more inclusive, this forum would serve no purpose.

You mean other than the baseball thread, political arguments, squirrel pictures, assorted gossip and other really important off-topic stuff that goes on of course.

;)

That would be your special purpose, Nevin.:D

Nevin?

That's Mr. Nevin, sir, to you.

By that logic we should not penalize a player who throws the ball OOB because there is no case book play for that simple, normal violation. People should be arguing that the ball must become OOB in some esoteric way in order for the officials to penalize it because clearly that is what the NFHS wants as evidenced by their provided case book rulings. :eek:

Now is that the line of thinking that you wish to follow? ;)

Way to avoid quoting the important part of the post, the confusion that 5-1-1 brings that only a touched ball may be scored during a throw-in.

5-1-1 + a CP that only deals with touching the ball in the cylinder for BI = possible confusion.:rolleyes:

5-1-1 has NOTHING to do with this play (or any other play that involves AWARDING points, as opposed to SCORING points).

Someone needs to look up the word POSSIBLE in the dictionary.

I am VERY AWARE of the difference between awarded and scored, the trouble is so much of the rule book is take a little of this rule and a little of that rule to apply the rules to a given situation. Someone could read no goal can be allowed during a throw-in for an untouched pass in 5-1-1 and use that to judge a possible BI during a throw-in, especially when the case play only mentions the touching the ball type of BI.