Did I mess this one up?
 

Boys JV game tonight. Team A makes a jump shot. B1 catches the ball out of the net, does not move so he's right under the basket in bounds. Looks kind of confused, then after 1 or 2 seconds, passes the ball to B2 who starts dribbling really fast up the court. B2 gets a few steps past the 28 foot line (still in the BC) and I hit the whistle, signal a violation and point toward team A's direction. B's bench loses their mind and says it's not a violation. Thoughts?

Violation it is...
 

That is a violation as team B never inbounds the ball. When the ball was available for them to throw in, they had 5 seconds to do so. B violation, A's ball....

I disagree...

1)I definitely hit the whistle before 5 seconds elapsed so i couldn't use that

2) By that logic, say B2 who now has the ball gets fouled. Pretty bad to penalize team A for fouling someone when the ball wasn't even live and technically there was no team control. Just doesn't make sense to me

See case play 9.2.2C. It says nothing about waiting 5 seconds. This is a violation as soon as it's apparent that the new team A is advancing the ball up the court without having done a proper throwin.

This is not a violation. Hit the whistle, kill the play, and give the ball back to Team B. The ball was never inbounded, the only thing you could do at all is give them a delay of game warning, but that's not even a good idea. The only way it would be a violation would be if it was a 5 second violation, which he has to step behind the line with ball in hand to do which he did not, or a boundary line infraction in which he steps behind the line with ball in hand and then steps over, I didn't say on the line, but over the line while ball is still in hand.

Man I remember the days when I used to get so screwed up with things like these. It's smart of you to ask about these small minute details JS 20, cause as you move up in every level, the small minute details make a big difference. For Example, my boss is going to chew my butt when he sees my crews tape and sees that we had a violation happen in the backcourt and we gave the team the ball in the frontcourt. That is a big difference in our game and my boss will call me out on it. See what I mean. Minute, but a difference maker.

Read the case play. It's a violation.

:eek:

:eek:

:eek: :eek:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :confused:

[quote=btaylor64]This is not a violation.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :D

WRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONG !!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

You couldn't be more WRONG if you tried.

The rule was edited and the case play added specifically because of discussions we had on this forum several years ago.

5 seconds has nothing to do with it. Once it's determined that Team B is not going to properly inbound the ball, you whistle the violation.

It makes no difference whether it makes any sense to you or not. The current 3 man mechanics on not switching for a foul in the BC makes no sense to me but I still follow them. Read the case book play and call it properly.

So this is a violation according to NFHS? WOW! That is unbelieveable! Kid never steps out of bounds to attempt the throw-in (he might just have a brain fart since he is young) and it's a violation? That is horrible!!! If I have that happen in any of my high school games I will take full responsibility for the play. They can fine me, sue me, take my game check, whatever. That is not what is right for the game. Common sense should prevail here.

I'm sorry that I missed that according to rule and don't want young guys on here not knowing the rules, but there are some times that you need to step up and gain a Crew Chief mentality and ask yourself, "Is it right for the game", because the integrity of the game is what you are trying to protect. Are you protecting it by a kid making a silly mistake by not stepping out of bounds for a throw-in when he hasn't even legally stepped out of bounds to be awarded the chance to make a throw-in? I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me.

So you're saying that anything that happens just because of a "brain fart" should not be penalized?

I don't think 9.2.2.c speaks to THIS situation: that of a confused player but rather of a situation of a team trying to gain an advantage. The casebook said the player with the ball "makes a move toward the end line as though" he's going to make a throw in from OOB.

BTaylor:

Sorry to sink your boat, BUT common sense has nothing to do with this play only logic and the rules of the game prevail here. The rules state was must be done by Team B after Team A has scored. Too bad that B1 did not follow the rules. What is good for the integrity of the game in this case is to enforce the rules.

By the way, this is also a violation under NCAA Men's/Women's and FIBA rules.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Good night all.

Texa Aggie:

See my post above.

MTD, Sr.

The Crew Chief mentality is to enforce the rules as agreed upon by the various state organizations in submitting to the NFHS. What's good for the game is to do what you're told to do and what you agreed to do when you signed up to be a ref.

What's NOT good for the game or for the kids or for anyone else involved is to just do whatever you happen to think seems like "common sense" regardless of what has been decided by the appointed, elected authoritative body. That's just plain asinine.

I don't think it's a violation under FIBA rules. Indeed, in the OP's situation, we are taught to kill the play and resume it with a correct throw-in from behind the endline.

Ciao

I actually thought that you were finally starting to get it, Ben. Unfortunately, I was wrong. As usual, you still won't bother learning basic rules. You refuse to try and understand why those basic rules were implemented too. It's not a matter of young guys not knowing the rules; it's a matter of a so-called official not knowing the rules, and then after being informed of the correct rule, arguing that it shouldn't be called that way and he's not going to. That's completely wrong for any official, at any age. Wrong and stoopid..

When did it become up to you to decide what rules you feel like enforcing? A definitive case play was issued. You didn't know that the case play existed. That's very telling. Hardly new but still telling. And it's even more telling when you state that you're going to ignore that definitive case play. Throwing in phrases like "crew chief mentality" and "protecting the integrity of the game" is absolutely ridiculous when you don't know the basics of officiating. Just because you heard those terms at some camp and you can now mindlessly regurgitate them here doesn't mean that you actually understand what those terms mean. You can't protect the integrity of the game by deliberately ignoring the rules of the game. It's very obvious that you don't have a clue what they're trying to teach you.

Maybe one day, some of this might make some sense to you. I've got my doubts though. Hopefully, other young officials reading this will learn something, even though it looks like you never will.

I couldn't have written it better. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../notworthy.gif

Are you sure? Rule please?

Thanks for all the replies. I'm sure at this point that I got it right. As I said in my second post in this thread, what if the defenseive team had fouled the ball handler? Then I have to penalize them with a foul when the ball wasn't correctly inbounded? Seems to me the offense is the one the goofed. Doesn't seem fair not to penalize them.

I'm glad I called it the way I did. I think calling it the way I did is "the best thing for the game" or whatever b/c I made them adhere to the rules and that's the best thing for the game.

way before your time on this board, there was a lengthy discussion on this play. The options were:

1) Wait 5-seconds, and then call a violation
2) Bring A back and have them attempt the throw-in from OOB
3) Immediate violation.

Each of those options had strong support, from different "well-respected" members. Nothing in FED made it clear which was corrrect.

The next year, FED came out with the ruling that the grand prize was behind door number 3. :shrug: SO, that's the rule. You can disagree with it, but you should enforce it, imo.

I empathize with your "is it right for the game". This however, is when we get in trouble. Through this board I've learned to follow the rules, that's why I have stripes on. if I don't adhere to them, I'm no better than the fan yelling "c'mon, let 'em play".

Yup, and that's really, really low!!:D

Can you imagine a D1 or NBA official ignoring a definitive rule or AR just because he personally thought that the call wasn't right for the game? His azz would be back in the rec leagues before it was completely dry from his post-game shower.

You mean like................traveling?:D

Even though I disagree with btaylor64's point of view here - hey, there is a clear ruling from the NFHS - I write to make two observations:

(1) JR, you were out of line, in my opinion, to go needlessly personal. Just as you would like him to learn from his mistakes, I'm pointing this out so that you will have the opportunity to learn from your mistake. You're welcome. :o

(2) I think we have to acknowledge that it is difficult to know when and where this just-enforce-the-rules mandate comes into contact with the don't-be-overly-officious-there-is-such-a-thing-as-advantage/disadvantage approach. It is O.K. to remind each other that we should just enforce the rules as written -- that this is the way we best protect/serve the game -- but then we've got to figure out a sensible way to communicate how/why calling the obvious illegal dribble ("palming") violation when there is no pressure and no advantage gained is wrong....

For what it is worth, I think responding to a clear NFHS ruling is a good place to start!

The only thing worse than not knowing a rule is knowing it and refusing to enforce it anyway. :(

If no one took the ball out of bounds after a made basket in one of your games, you would not call it the entire game. You would just let them take the ball and begin play. Would they have to pass it to a teammate, or can they just begin a dribble? I fail to see where this is good for the game.:rolleyes:

In my opinion, you should mind your own damn business. It's not <b>your</b> business to tell anyone on this forum how or what to post. That's the moderator's job. You're way out of line. If you can't learn from your mistake, then as an alternative feel free to just piss off.

Is that clear enough for you?

You're welcome also.

It is a violation, be careful on making up your own rules. Coaches don't need any inconsistency and it is not our job to confuse players by unilaterally chaning rules that we don't like

Please provide a rule book citing please. I don't want a case play. I want someone to provide where it says, in the rule book, that a player who is not yet stepped out of bounds is illegal. I believe it is one thing when he makes an attempt to step out of bounds and doesn't get all the way out and i believe it is different when he just grabs the ball and goes. They have to step out of bounds to be given or awarded the right for a legal or legit throw-in. I don't deem the play we're talking about an illegal throw-in or even a throw-in violation because he was not at the proper spot to make a, by definition, THROW-IN.

Why not a case book play? They carry the same weight as the rule book in NFHS, as do the interps and memos that are sent out mid-season. It's ridiculous for you to be so snitty about this. You're wrong, pure and simple. Just Get Over Yourself.

1) That statement sums up your development as an official quite nicely.

2) Have you read any of the other responses in this thread? It's you against the world. Don't you think that might just be a little hint that there's a chance, no matter how faint that chance is, that you possibly could be wrong?

Ben, go on your merry little way. Call what you wanna call. If you're going to deny the existence of a plainly written case play, there's no hope for you anyway.

9-2-2 The ball shall be passed directly into the court FROM OUT OF BOUNDS... (my emphasis). That's what the rule says. If it isn't passed from oob, it's against the rules. Period.

"Do you feel lucky punk? You are asking yourself: did he fire five shots or did he fire six? To tell you the truth, in all of the excitement I don't know myself. So, do you feel lucky punk?"


Well I am not sure if that is an accurate verbatim quote of Dirty Harry, BUT, and I will keep this in the realm of the NFHS:

From the NFHS Rules Book:

R9-S2: Throw-in Provisions

NFHS R9-S2-A2: The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court from out-of-bounds so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.


From the NFHS Casebook:

Play 9.2.2 SITUATION C: A1 scores a basket. After the ball goes through the net, B1 grabs it and makes a move toward the end line as though preparing to make a throw-in. However, B1 never legally steps out of bounds, both feet remain inbounds. B1 immediately passes the ball up the court to a fast-breaking teammate, who scores a basket. RULING: Cancel Team B's goal, throw-in violation on B1. The ball was at B1's disposal after the made basket to make a throw-in. B1 must be out of bounds to make a legal throw-in. (R7-S4-A3; R7-S5-A7)


What part of these the Rule and the Casebook Play don't you understand. They go hand-in-hand. The Casebook Play is to show the application of the rule. A Casebook Play has the force of the Rule. It is analogous to the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling. That ruling has the force of law. Get over it and apply the Casebook Play.

MTD, Sr.

Well, I"m glad I decided to go ahead and look up the rule, because I beat you to the post!!! In my very limited life this winter, it's nice to know I haven't totally lost the spring in my step...

Juulie:

ROFLMAO!! That is why I had Mark, Jr. become an OhioHSAA basketball official. I need him to carry me on the court. :D

I am just glad we were able to double team him. :D

MTD, Sr.

Well, gee, Mark, it wasn't that funny. But I guess if you're that easy to entertain, I'm glad I can be of some use.

I am getting easy to entertain because according to my two sons (ages 14 and 17) I am getting senile in my old age.

MTD, Sr.

So if he has yet to step or attempted to step out of bounds for the use of a throw-in he has not violated any provision.

Also Rule 4 section 42 Art. 2 states:

A throw-in is a method of putting the ball in play FROM OUT OF BOUNDS. So it seems to me that since this player does not touch any part of the out of bounds area that he has not violated any throw-in provisions. I'm not trying to make anything up. To me, the rule book is like the bible, everybody is going to read the same words and interpret it in the way they see best fits. My interp of this play according to rules in which I have cited here, this is not a violation. If you interpret it differently then so be it. I don't believe the case book play to match the rules that are set therein.

I also went back and read the rule page citings that are given for this case play and it pertains to when you are awarded the ball OOB and the other pertains to running the endline after a made basket none of which make light of a player not stepping OOB and throwing the ball to a teammate.

You know, it is what it is, I don't believe I'm making anything up here. the casebook might not support me, but the rulebook does (consistency, huh). Nowhere does it state that a player has violated on this type of play. He must be out of bounds to establish, by definition, a throw-in, which he does not do here, therefore no provisions have been met nor have they been violated.

Jurassic it never ceases to fail or amaze me for that matter, that you go on the attack on a personal level. That shows your true colors I believe. If you're pissed with me, PM me and tell me privately. If you don't like what I have to say, fine. That is like a coach telling me I made a horrible call, I'll take a look at it and see what I had. I could be wrong but not as often as I am right. I guess its good that you are well respected around here in cyberspace because if it was any other person that said what he did to bgtg19 this thread would be locked up in a heartbeat. That was a total classless move to respond to him like that. You can keep attacking me forever as long as it is bball or officiating related, since you know everything about me, but don't go after a guy because you are pissed at me and then you are pissed at him for having my back against you. And you know what maybe you're right, maybe I haven't gotten this whole officiating thing yet, but I will one day. But I will always be able to go back and thank you for calling me stupid, which helps me out so much in my development as an official. Thanks.

BTaylor:

I do not know where you officiate. I do not know how long you have been officiating. BUT, it is obvious you do not have a very good grasp of the rules. The rules are quite clear, for a team to put the ball back into play, it must make it inbounds throw from out-of-bounds. If they do NOT, they have committed a throw-in violation. One of my personal friends is Peter Webb, a two time member of the NFHS Rule Committee and the foremost NFHS Rules person in the country (Mary Struckhoff cannot hold a candle to Peter when it comes to rules and mechanics knowledge) and the current State Rules Interpreter for the Maine Principals Association (the StateHSAA for the state of Maine). I know other past and present menbers of the NFHS Rules Committee and I can assure that that everyone will agree with me concerning your lack of understanding of the rules. If you find the concept that I am trying to teach you too difficult to grasp, then maybe you should find a different advocation, lest you become labled another Old School. Oh my gosh, I have said he who must not me named. LOL

The Rules Book, is not like the Bible. It is the law and there is only one interpretation per a specific rule, not a different interpretation by each official as he reads it. Get with the program.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. If you think JR is in attack mode you haven't seen me when I get my knickers in a bunch when a young official who thinks he knows everything there is to know won't listen to logic.

JR, MTD, rainmaker, please allow me to share my favorite gif with you.
http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

I'll now resume my previous activity.
http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/popcorn.gif

Ben, the problem isn't that you are wrong. The problem is that you are so badly wrong on a very basic call that is completely rules-backed and you still absolutely refuse to admit it. Your lame response and continued denial above of something that is plainly and definitively written in the rules is proof of that. And it sureasheck isn't the first time for you either. That is sad. And very telling also. If you can't admit it when you are wrong, you will <b>never</b> get the whole officiating thing.

And btw, I leave moderating to the mods. That's their job. They've deleted a ton of my posts in the past when they felt that I went overboard. That's their job, not some clown tsk-tsking me for saying something that might have been blunt but was still <b>true</b>.

As I said, feel free to call whatever you feel like calling. Ignore the case book. You'll get exactly what you deserve.

I don't want any part of the previous discussion, but I did feel compelled to respond to this statement (for some reason).

The Casebook is an extension of the Rules Book. We all know that while, for the most part, the Rules Book is pretty clear when read in depth, there are some situations - or cases - where it is not 100% clear how a rule should be applied. The Casebook is the way the NFHS clarifies those situations.

It carries the same weight as the Rules Book, and is the official interpretation of the rules. To say that the Rules Book backs you up while the Casebook does not is reading more into the Rules Book than is there.

The analogy posted above by Mark is a good one - case law decided by the Supreme Court is law. You may even disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling on any number of issues, but it doesn't change the fact that it is now enforceable law. You can petition the court - or in our case the NFHS - to change it's rulings, but until they do, we are all required to abide by the law as citizens/players and enforce the law as police officers/officials.

This is either arguement for arguement's sake, which is unfortunate, or a stubborn misunderstanding of what the Casebook actually is.

PS. By the way, I say this not as someone who is always correct - I've been wrong on my share of Rules, and others have corrected me here. That's why I'm here. I'm in my second year of serious officiating and have a lot to learn. But, one thing I do know is that when a clear Rules citation or Casebook citation is given, that's the end of the arguement.

That, in general, is the argument that was put forth by those (and I was one of them) who thought this should NOT be a violation.

The NFHS disagrees. Given their clarification by issuing a case play, I (and, I'd hope, you) now know how to call it.

If you think the case is "wrong", propose a rules change. At the very least, be clear here that you are discussing "what the rule should be" and not "what the rule is".

I guess I could and should do that. this is a pretty trivial play anyway. How many times will you see a player not even make a move toward the OOB line to throw it in. If NFHS wants a violation on that play, fine. There is a good point made about the supreme court law, but it is also weak on the NFHS part to not give or cite anywhere in the rule book that this case play is backed by. I found nowhere, where this play was supported. It seems like it was pulled out of thin air. Does that not bother anyone else?

Let me ask this question then. If you had no idea what the rule, oh excuse me, the casebook play on this was, what would your gut tell you to do on this play?

After this I"m leaving this alone cause it is such a trivial play that there are far better plays that should be discussed rather than one that you might see happen every once in a while.

Generally rules of sports are meant to be consistent and provide reasonable challenges and safety measures. Other than that they are pretty arbitrary. Your gut feel or even your view of what's fair or logical plays no part.

I would call a throw-in violation.
I don't understand why you have such a problem with this.
There are certain activities during a basketball game that must be done from a specified location. If that doesn't happen then the activity wasn't properly excuted, so that player violated the rules.

For example, a FT must be attempted from within the semi-circle, a jumper must stand within the proper half of the circle for the jump ball, a rebounder who is along the FT lane must take a position within one of the marked lane spaces.

All that you have to understand is that it is illegal for a player to attempt any of these activities from a location other than that specified in the rules.

That's not so hard.

My gut would tell me this is a violation. The team failed to take the ball OOB after a made basket and proceeded upcourt.

I don't get the arguement that it doesn't fit the intent of the rules at all. Not calling this a violation seems a violation the spirit and intent of the rules IMO.

Pulled out of thin air to call a violation for not taking the ball oob after a made basket???? WTF??

My gut tells me that the ball ALWAYS is to be taken oob after a made basket, and that if it isn't it's a violation. Seems like common sense to me!

Nope, it was exactly as I argued it should be before the NFHS agreed! :D

The rules say the team shall make a throwin from OOB after a made basket. If they don't, they've violated the rules. Not being OOB is only one way to violate the throwin rules.

As I said, this was the interpretation I had before the case play was published....team was entitled to a throwin and didn't execute it properly....violation.

Item (1):

You state that this is a trivial play. Just remember: "There are no small parts, just small actors." I don't remember who said this but it is an applicable quote. BECAUSE, the Rule is so clear on this play. For a throw-in to be a legal throw-in it must be made from behind the boundary line. In this play it was not. Even Mark, Jr. knew it was a violation without having to read the Casebook Play. If you haven't seen it very often then you have neither officiated for very long nor have you officiated very many games; especially at the jr. H.S. level, :D .


Item (2):

Now you are learning I hope>'


Item (3):

If you read the Ohio (I live in the State of Ohio; BUT I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I did stay at a Hoiday Inn Express last night, no Bonnie didn't throw me out of the house but she could quailfy for sainthood even though she is not Catholic) Revised Code, you will find the law, but you won't find Case Law. But if you read Case Law, you will find the approiate references to the Ohio Revised Code. Get use to sports rules being the same as the law.

The Rule states that for a throw-in to be legal it must be taken from behind the boundary line. The player in the OP did not make the throw-in from behind the boundary line as required. The Casebook Play gave an example of such a type of play that would be a violation of the Rule. And NO it was not pulled out of thin air or any bodily orifice, therefore it does not bother me. The Casebook Play RULING was made using the correct Rule reference.


Item (4):

Since this is a trivial play, one really doesn't need to make a gut (and I have a substantional gut, LOL) decision on this play. It is covered by Rule. Casebook Plays exist to show give expamples of how the Rules are to be applied.

I have been a H.S. official for 37 years and a college official for 34 years, that means I have accumulated (much to my saintly wife's consternation) a substantional (not unlike my gut) amount of books containing Rules and Casebook Plays. There are Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings that are not in the current publications that still are in effect because there has not been a rule change that would change the RULING in that Casebook Play or the Approved Ruling that is not in the current publication.

How does a young grasshopper like yourself aquire the knowledge that old geezers like JR, Peter Webb, BkbRef, and I have accumulated. Study every publication regarding the rules, casebook plays, approved rulings, and mechanics you can get your hands on. Such as all NFHS, NCAA, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA publications. If you can afford it become a member of Officiating.com, NASO, IAABO, and Eofficials.com and then read everything that these organizations have to offer. Even go to officiating camps and clinics. Finally, ask questions and listen to the answers. Seek out the best and the brightest. I am sure that the local officials associations have learned officials will answer your questions. Go to the horse's mouth if you want to have your questions answsered, such as the NFHS and NCAA Rules editors.

MTD, Sr.

No, it doesn't because you're wrong. The rule does exist but you simply refuse to believe it. Everyione single poster in this thread has told you that this is a violation, yet you're the one that's right. What the hell is wrong with that picture?

The Case Book is an extension of the Rule Book. The Case Book is clear. 9.2.2 is an extension of 9-2-2. You know it, we know it. But you're too damn prideful to admit that you're wrong.

Fine. Just continue down that path and you'll never improve.

OK, guys. Riddle me this. Team A scores. The ball comes through the basket where it is picked up by B1. B1 throws the ball to B2 who is standing about 10 feet or so upcourt from B1. Would you then blow your whistle claiming this is an "improper" inbound pass since B1 never went OOB, or would you continue your 5 second count, thinking B1 just wants B2 to take the ball OOB for the inbound pass and wait to see what B2 does?

IOW - when do you make the determination on whether or not a player's throwing of the ball to another player in this situation is which kind of play? What criteria do you use?

It would seem to me there is something ambiguous here. Yes, I know we use our judgment all game long but wouldn't it just make it easier to change the rule so they have 5 seconds to take it out and make the pass - period. You'd still get the violation and it would take all the guesswork out of the play.

Or what about when B1 grabs the ball, takes a step towards the end line, but never gets his foot all the way oob before throwing up court. Same deal.

Did you mean throwing up on the court? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/puke.gif

Let me tell you what I had Friday night.

End of the 2nd Quarter, Team A makes a shot with about 3 or 4 seconds left on the clock. B1 grabs the ball, moves toward the endline, and heaves the ball toward a teammate that is up near midcourt. B1 never got out of bounds. I am the covering official on the throw-in. As I go to blow my whistle, and before I can get air in my whistle, the horn goes off to end the half.

Coach of Team A is upset that we didn't call the throw-in violation, and I can understand why he wanted it, as it would have given his team one last possession before halftime, with the ball right under the basket. But the bottom line is, not having blown my whistle, or seeing the clock and knowing how much time could have been put back on the clock, there was nothing more to do. I told him this when I went to the table to get the ball before we started the 3rd Q, but he would have none of it. LAH ME!! They lost by 2 on a tip-in at the buzzer.

You use case book play 9.2.2SitC as the criteria. That says that the ball was at the disposal of a player to make a throw-in. The player must then be OOB to make a legal throw-in.

Common sense tells you when a player after a basket is flipping the ball to another player to take OOB for the throw-in. All you have to do is watch what the second player does with the ball. If they head for the endline, they're gonna throw the ball in. If they head up the court, call the violation. Whatinthell could be easier than that?

There's no need to change this rule.

See post #4 of this thread.

Rules 4-42-2&3 already says that. What do you want to change?:confused:

Let me ask this...
 

I had a play tonight, where after a made basket by team A, player B1 took ball out of the basket, took a step toward endline, handed it back to B2 and then THEY take a step toward the line and hand it back to B3 who ultimately steps out-of-bounds and passes it in to B4. Each step along the way was a "no, let me take it out!"

My question is... how does the pass back to a teammate in the "no, let me take it" differ from an actual pass inbounds (or attempt to pass inbounds).

For example, player B1 (in my above scenario) takes it out of the basket, steps towards the out-of-bounds (which they actually did), and turns and passes the ball to B2 thinking they had stepped over the endline.

What quality of the plays makes one legal and the other a violation?

To paraphrase a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, whose name I can't remember:

I'll know a violation when I see it.

MTD, Sr.

I don't have my books with me... but...

is there a restriction on what B can do with the ball once the official starts his count that the ball is at B's disposal?

Play: A1 scores and B grabs the dead ball. B doesn't do anything with the ball for a second, and then the official decides that the ball is now B's disposal and starts the 5-second count.

Before B takes the ball to OOB for a valid throw-in, could they hypothetically not pass the ball to a teammate near half-court, then pass the ball back to OOB on the endline, then legally pass the ball inbound?

Ruling: ?

Do they pass to a teammate near halfcourt or not?:confused: :confused:

Once one of the B players is OOB with the ball, he's thrower. He can now pass the ball to a teammate who is inbounds or completely OOB as the throw-in has begun. If he hands the ball to a teammate inbounds, passes the ball to a teammate who's straddling the line or a teammate catches the ball inbounds and steps OOB, it's a violation.


It's either a legal throw-in or it isn't. None of these complications you throw into it make any difference. It makes no matter what the player(s) think. A player who travels but thinks he didn't, has still traveled.

Officiate the play, recognize what you see, make the call BASED ON THE RUELS, NOT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULE SHOULD BE as another does.

bt64 you asked for a rule book citation I think 4-42-2 should suffice. A throw-in is a method of putting the ball in play from out of bounds.

6-7-1 The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when: a goal, as in 5-1 is made.

Basketball Rules Fundamentals:
4 The jump ball, the throw-in and the free throw are the only methods of getting a dead ball live.

So in the situation that started the discussion if the player does not take the ball out of bounds the ball is still dead.

Nope. The ball becomes live once it is at the disposal of any player of the throwing team. It does not have to be taken OOB in order to become live.

OK correction accepted. Reference 4-4-7d

Am I mistaken, or is this a prime example of a PERSONAL ATTACK by one member of this board to another? Last I checked the TOS, those were forbidden, and yet this is allowed to stand?

I know, you'd like to see the TOS in writing, and quite frankly, so would I. They seem to have disappeared, but I emailed Brad yesterday and he did say that they were stii in effect and that personal attacks were in fact forbidden.

But maybe there's something new in there that says people with over 15,000 posts are exempt?

Maybe. :) Perhaps the mods have determined this doesn't rise (or lower) to their particular standard of "personal attack". Different people have different standards. Or, perhaps the mods just haven't seen it yet.

Just curious - do you agree with btaylor64's interpretation and subsequent posts on this topic?

It's a good thing sarcasm isn't banned by the mods. :)

I've only been through the thread once, and I don't recall who was advocating what, but I believe that in these situations, it is up to the covering official to determine when the player has "inbounded" the ball. If, in the judgment of the official, the pass was made to "inbound" the ball, even if the player never got all the way out of bounds, it is a violation at that time. No need to wait for 5 seconds, or anything like that.

EDIT: Just went back and re-read btaylor64's first post in this thread. He couldn't be more wrong.

My point was that you should go back and read all the posts a little more carefully, and then put that in the context of what JR was saying. Is JR a little too blunt? Uhh...sometimes. Is it a "personal attack"? I didn't think so, given some of the things I've seen here over the years.

There's a difference between attacking someone's position, and attacking them personally. He attacked Ben personally on this one.

Thank you for your input.

"I Know It When I See It".
 

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced but I know it when I see it".

BillyMac:

Thanks.

MTD, Sr.