Inbounds play after a made basket

[Rich]

I saw something I haven't seen in 20 years tonight. I've talked to a great number of people and I still haven't talked to anyone 100% certain how to rule on this play, including some fine area officials:

Visiting team (A) winning 52-50 with the ball and the right to run the baseline.

As I expected, A2 ran from in-bounds to receive the ball from A1. The ball was rolled/bounced in the direction of A2.

(Note: This court is very tight along both baselines. There is a wall 2-3 feet from the baseline covered with thick padding.)

The ball grazed the wall/padding and was then caught by A2 (pretty much in one motion) who then threw the ball onto the court.

My reaction at the time (for what it's worth) was that the ball was not directed towards the court and that the rule simply says that A has the right to make the throw-in from anywhere along the baseline. I did not consider this to be a violation and called the foul once A3 received the pass (and was immediately) fouled.

The home coach was quite unhappy and was not made any happier with my explanation, which was made with sincerity at the time.

I was more than prepared to be wrong on this, but I looked through the rules and case materials (the rule is 7-5-7, BTW) in the locker room and this is simply not addressed, not that I can find.

Now, many good officials I spoke to said they would call this a violation for the same reason that a throw-in off the back of the backboard would be a violation - the ball struck something stationary out-of-bounds. I can live with that, except there are clear differences: The throw/roll from A1 to A2 is not a throw-in. It's allowing a teammate to make the throw-in from anywhere along the endline, which is allowed by rule. If A1 had dropped the ball after the made basket so A2 could pick it up and make the throw in and the ball had rolled up against the wall, I wouldn't have even considered making a call. What's the difference?

If someone can point me to an actual case play or rules citation that specifically covers this, I'd appreciate it.

Like I said, I hadn't seen anything like it in 20 years and I feel miserable that this happened in a 2-point game with 7 seconds left where a violation called would've given the ball to the losing team in its offensive half of the court. Right or wrong, I feel I was unprepared for this, which is a horrible feeling.

[BoomerSooner]

I think as long as the purpose of rolling the ball was to get it to another teammate that was clearly behind the baseline for the purpose of making a throw-in that this is just incidental and not a violation. I've seen players pick up the ball to inbound it and then drop it so another player can inbound it. In the process of dropping it, it bounced off the wall. It never even came into my mind to call this a violation. Obviously the action in your play is a little different, but in my mind as long as the wall isn't providing an advantage and the ball grazing the wall is unintentional then I'm not going to think twice about it.

[Nevadaref]

Rich,
You handled it correctly. This is NOT a violation. Only the throw-in pass is subject to the requirement that it must go directly into the court. An OOB pass between teammates outside of the boundary plane may contact OOB. That is true whether the ball strikes the floor OOB or an object (such as a bleacher or chair) or a wall. There is simply no rule which prohibits this.

You already know the relevant rules in the book, so I'll just remind you of the case book play that states it is legal for a thrower to bounce the ball on the OOB area before making a throw-in (9.2.2 Sit D) and ask you to think about what you would do if a player from the nonscoring team grabbed the ball following a made goal, stepped OOB and in frustration bounced the ball off the back wall clearly in a manner that was NOT unsporting and caught it while still OOB. There is no call to be made there, right? One simply continues the five second count. Your play follows the same concept. The ball struck something that is OOB, but it was PRIOR to the throw-in pass, hence there is nothing illegal about the action. The unhappy coach needs to learn the rules better.

The only way that this would be illegal is if the ball caromed into the court off the wall or floor area that is OOB and then it would have to be considered a throw-in pass. That's 9.2.2 Sit A.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Rich,
The only way that this would be illegal is if the ball caromed into the court off the wall or floor area that is OOB and then it would have to be considered a throw-in pass. That's 9.2.2 Sit A.

One of the case plays says that it needs to be done "with deception" (or something like that). Since that wasn't the case here, I agree that Rich was right in letting it go.

[Rich]

I wish I knew the case play, cause I can't find it.

I emailed the WIAA person in charge of basketball along with someone from Referee magazine who acts as a first line interpreter. I did ask that if they can't give a definitive ruling that it get forwarded to the NFHS.

Thanks for the replies. I know now, no matter how it's ruled on, that I didn't make an obvious blunder and ruled based on my rules knowledge (along with the spirit and intent) the best I could. Who could ask for more, really?

Funny thing was, I ended up working the JV game last night, too. First JV game I did in 3 seasons. Got an email at 5:21PM asking if I knew anyone who could work it. I told them I could be there by 5:55PM (6PM start) and when I got there, there was one official in a jacket standing at midcourt.

[Rich]

Here's the message I sent to the state office. Teams/names redacted:

I had a play last night I haven't ever seen in 20 years of officiating. I want to put the situation in writing and ask that if there isn't a definite ruling evident in the case book or rule book that the WIAA send the play to the NFHS for clarification. I will include my rule justification for my ruling as part of the play scenario.

Varsity boys. The score was 52-50, XXXXXXXXXX (Visitors) with 7.0 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. XXXXXXXXX (Home) had scored and Visitors had the ball with the right to run the end line after a made basket, Home called time before the ball was at the disposal of the thrower-in.

After the timeout, I signaled that Visitors could inbound from anywhere along the end line (run the endline), blew my whistle, and handed the ball to the thrower-in. As I expected, the thrower in (A1) ran a set play and threw the ball to his teammate (A2) out of bounds.

Home's gym is very shallow on the baselines, with perhaps 2-3 feet between the endlines and the (padded) wall.

A1's pass hit/grazed the wall on the way to A2. A2 then passed the ball to A3 on the floor and A3 was fouled. It was not intentional and there was no deception as part of this.

I did not rule this a violation for the following reasons:

(1) Rule 9-2-2 directs us to 7-5-7 as the exception that allows A1 to give/pass the ball to A2.

(2) 7-5-7 only specifies that a teammate can replace another teammate in this situation as the thrower-in anywhere along the end line. This allows the pass.

(3) The pass is not a throw-in, it's merely A1 giving the ball to A2 for the throw-in (which is important, as if this was a pass that ended up on the court, it would be considered a throw-in and a violation per case book 9.2.2. Sit. A).

(4) 9.2.2 Sit D (case book) allows the thrower-in to bounce the ball on the out-of-bounds area before making a throw-in. If A1 had retrieved the ball after the made basket and bounced the ball off the wall to himself, I would not whistle this as a violation. As his pass to A2 is essentially the same thing (it's not a throw in, just A1 making the ball available to A2 for a throw in anywhere along the end line as per 7-5-7), I let it go. We'd allow the A1 to bounce the ball to A2 out-of-bounds - I didn't see how this was any different. Again 7-5-7 says nothing about A1 passing to A2 -- rather that it's not a violation for A1 to give the ball to A2 when the throwin can be made from anywhere along the end line due to a made basket (or defensive penalty).

OK, that's it. Obviously, the Home coach was not happy with the decision I made, but I gave him the exact reasoning I typed above (without rule references, of course, and more quickly).

I'm happy to be told that I was incorrect here, but that will require (to the best of my knowledge) a ruling not directly from a specific rule or case play unless I wasn't able to find one. So I request that you send this to your interpretors/experts and also request that unless they have a specific rule that covers this that you send it to the NFHS for clarification. I joked last night that this would be in the case book in 2 years, but now that I think about it, maybe it should be.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is NOT a violation. Only the throw-in pass is subject to the requirement that it must go directly into the court.

FWIW, this is my answer, as well, and for the same reason. It wasn't a throw-in. Therefore, no violation.

[mj]

Fabulous question. FWIW, I would've not ruled a violation here.

[Back In The Saddle]

I've got no violation here either. What's the difference between the pass between teammates OOB striking the floor or the wall? Both are OOB. But if it struck the floor, nobody would bat an eye at it.

[Rich]

The NFHS has ruled (via email from Mary Struckhoff):

"Well, to me, if space is limited to begin with, and it was not done to
deceive the opponent, then NO, no violation."

Edited to add: However, this doesn't mean that this will be the ruling going forward. Apparently this has created numerous conversations as there is no specific coverage and required an interpretation/ruling from Struckhoff. It will be a discussion topic at the rules committee meeting in April. This could potentially end up as a case play next season. I emailed the coach and he respectfully disagreed that there is limited space on the baseline, but when I notice I have to work differently as the lead, then that means that as far as I'm concerned the space is limited.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The NFHS has ruled (via email from Mary Struckhoff):

"Well, to me, if space is limited to begin with, and it was not done to
deceive the opponent, then NO, no violation."

Edited to add: However, this doesn't mean that this will be the ruling going forward. Apparently this has created numerous conversations as there is no specific coverage and required an interpretation/ruling from Struckhoff. It will be a discussion topic at the rules committee meeting in April. This could potentially end up as a case play next season. I emailed the coach and he respectfully disagreed that there is limited space on the baseline, but when I notice I have to work differently as the lead, then that means that as far as I'm concerned the space is limited.

Who cares if the "space was limited"? That's not the point. If the NF rules committee decides to make this a violation, their going to have to make it a violation to bounce the ball on the floor OOB from A1 to A2 prior to the inbound pass. They can't have it one way and not the other. (notice I didn't say "call it both ways") OOB is OOB.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Who cares if the "space was limited"? That's not the point. If the NF rules committee decides to make this a violation, their going to have to make it a violation to bounce the ball on the floor OOB from A1 to A2 prior to the inbound pass. They can't have it one way and not the other. (notice I didn't say "call it both ways") OOB is OOB.

Of course you realize that I'm just the messenger.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Of course you realize that I'm just the messenger.

http://static.flickr.com/163/380645017_1914c985b8_m.jpg