player can run the baseline. Player runs from the OOB toward inbounds for a throwin. Goes air born from oob, i.e. last touched oob, now player is in air on the inbound side of the baseline. Before touching inbounds, releases the ball for the throwin to a teammate. Is this legal?

Bart,
I'm guessing player will no longer have one foot over the spot. **Tweet**. ;)
mick

Legal
 

It is for me. It is the same (IMO) as reaching the ball through the plane. The defense can then grab it, but the point is there is no penalty on the offense for reaching the ball through. We all see players step OOB without getting their body through the plane for this throw-in all the time. Same difference. (Note original post stated that the player could run the endline, so there is no "spot" involved. I don't know if being a spot throw-in would change my opinion or not. Probably would by the book, but I probably wouldn't call it.)

Re: Legal - Ya think?
 

Richard,
The throw-in spot is the endline in the case given.
mick

I'm thinking . . . no.

Let's start off with 7-6-7: The team shall take the throw-in "from any point outside the end line."
7-6-2: Thrower shall not leave the "designated throw-in spot."

While it is true that "you are where you were until you get where you are going," the thrower-in is no longer over the 'spot' required by the rules.

The spot throwin gives very specific guildlines on what is and what is not allowed. Under the FT rules the breaking of the plane is also spelled out about breaking the plane. Now the throwin rule does allow breaking of the plane. I didn't read any of the same restrictions under throwin rules. So, if you can break the plane with one foot and you can jump to throw in the ball, then why not the whole body breaking the plane?

Bart,
...Because the spot is behind the line and one foot must be over the spot.
mick

Mick, you are saying the whole end line is the spot? I'm not convinced yet. I'm thinking the reason the spot throwin has these guildlines is because you have 3' to work with ( which really could be as much as 9') but that is another subject. If what you say is true then why is it ONLY mentioned in the spot throwin? Why wouldn't they mention it in the throwin rules?

They do make a very strong implication, Bart.
Rules (page 72) Throw-in after a score <b>"....This change applies when the spot for the throw-in would be at the endline."</b>

;)
mick

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!!!

Other than an endline throw-in (for which the spot is the entire endline), the spot is three feet wide (yes, I know that's geometrically impossible, well, for a point at least :D) - no more, NO LESS! The width the player can run is immaterial.

Think of it this way: We call the endline the spot because a player cannot run to a point past the imaginary extension of the perpendicular boundary. Therefore, it is a "spot" throw-in, just with a wide spot. The spot can only go back to the wall, not forward to the court.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

the spot is three feet wide (yes, I know that's geometrically impossible, well, for a point at least :D) - no more, NO LESS! The width the player can run is immaterial.

Mark,

I think Bart's point is not that the spot itself is 9' wide. Rather, given a 3' wide spot, a player can stretch himself 3' to the right of that spot, or can stretch himself 3' to the left of that spot, while still maintaining one foot over the designated spot. Thus, the thrower-in (what a horrible term) has the 3' spot, plus the the length of one step or so on each side of the spot. The designated spot is 3' wide, but the thrower has 9 feet "to work with", as Bart put it.

Chuck

What about during a 3-foot wide spot throw-in, can the player jump in the air sideways going past the 3-foot boundary but release the ball before he lands. Since he is where he's been until he lands, this wouldn't appear to be a violation. I am not convinced the act of holding onto the ball past the plane would be a violation either. It would look very weird and truthfully if I saw it live I would more than likely blow the whistle, but this is a good question.

The rules clearly spell out that this would be a violation. The "designated throw-in spot" The thrower must keep one foot on or over the spot until the ball is released.

Interesting, Would you make a distinction between, " spot for the throw-in" and " Designated throw-in spot"?

Bart,
I would make such a distinction... by waving the end line, if necessary, or pointing. ;)
mick

YOU ARE REEAALL FUNNY mick!

I think it's legal. I don't see anything in the definition of "designated spot" that it ends at the inbounds line.

RefMag agrees (in the April 2002 issue). I know that's not much support, given the mistakes that are often made, but it's something.

Bob, Either i am misunderstanding you or you have not read the definition of Designated spot. Help me out here.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart Tyson

Quote:

Bob, Either i am misunderstanding you or you have not read the definition of Designated spot. Help me out here.

4-41-6 "The designated spot is 3 feet wide with no depth limitation"

You can read "depth" as meaning "from the sideline back to the wall". I choose not to put any "sideline" restriction on it.

If you put a restriction on it, then 9-2-1 would not allow you to leap over the court. But, 9-2-11 NOTE allows the offense to penetrate the plane -- again, not restricted to "arms or one foot", so you'd have a conflict between 9-2-1 and 9-2-11.

If you don't put the restriction on 4-41-6, then the rules aren't in conflict. 9-2-1 deals with "horizontal" movement, 9-2-5 deals with landing on the court before releasing the ball, and 9-2-11 NOTE says it's okay to leap over the court.

The NCAA rules are substantially the same.

Bob I don't think you read 4-41-6-Note. There is a restriction on the Designated throw-in spot. The thrower must keep one foot on or over the spot until the ball is released.

You have to keep foot on or over designated spot, but the spot is three feet wide, there is nothing about anything else. We alwyas tell the players you can go backwards as far as they want and their foot is always over the spot. since an offensive player can break the plane on the throwin I would think this play is legal. Now if someone figures out this is a great advantage the rule may change but I really cant see whay the advantage would be, to me I would rather stay over the oob areas so I can protect the ball...

Ok. So player A1 has the ball at his disposal, count is at
4 and he jumps into B1 who is defending the throw in.
P.C.?;) (Yeah, I know, I'm a smart a**, so I'll save you the
time.):D:p

Given that you have to have one foot over or above the designated spot, then the designated spot can not extend into the playing court. Why? Because if you touch the floor inbounds you have commited a violation. The throw in spot extend backwards from the endline, but can not extend past the endline. You have to be able to put your foot down on the spot and you can't do that past the endline into the playing surface.

The end line is a spot.
 

SITUATION #1: After the made basket, A1 has the ball for a throw-in along the end line. B1 fouls A2 at: (a) the division line; (b) the free-throw line closest to the throw-in; (c) along the sideline by A's bench; or (d) along the end line near A1. RULING: In (a) and (c) the ball is put in play at the out of bounds spot closest to where the foul occurred which is along the sideline. A throw-in along the sideline is always a spot throw-in. In (b) and (d) <Font Size = +3>the closest spot to the foul is the end line </font>where the original throw-in was taking place. In both situations the thrower will retain the privilege of running the end line for the throw-in. (7-5-7)

The throw-in spot is out-of-bounds... otherwise they would call it the throw-to spot.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

But, 9-2-11 NOTE allows the offense to penetrate the plane -- again, not restricted to "arms or one foot" ... ...9-2-11 NOTE says it's okay to leap over the court.

9-2-11 Note says "penetrate the plane", <u>not</u> "leap over the court".

going back to the original post. It had nothing to do with a designated spot. The player could run the endline... and ran forward and leaped. He doesnt need to keep foot on spot.

Drake is right, you have a chance at a foul more than anything.

Mick what is your definition of penetrate

from the miriam webster on-line dictionary

Main Entry: pen·e·trate
Pronunciation: 'pe-n&-"trAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -trat·ed; -trat·ing
Etymology: L penetratus, past participle of penetrare, from penitus deep within, far; akin to Latin penus provisions
Date: circa 1530
transitive senses
1 a : to pass into or through b : to enter by overcoming resistance : PIERCE c : to gain entrance to
2 a : to see into or through b : to discover the inner contents or meaning of
3 : to affect profoundly with feeling
4 : to diffuse through or into
intransitive senses
1 a : to pass, extend, pierce, or diffuse into or through something b : to pierce something with the eye or mind
2 : to affect deeply the senses or feelings
synonym see ENTER

In my mind you either penetrate or you dont... it's like being pregnant youre either pregnant or your not ( or your wife)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kelvin green
[B]going back to the original post. It had nothing to do with a designated spot. The player could run the endline... and ran forward and leaped. He doesnt need to keep foot on spot.</b>

NFHS Situation #1 states the end line is a spot.

<b>
Mick what is your definition of penetrate</b>


from the miriam webster on-line dictionary

Main Entry: pen·e·trate
1 a :<u> to pass into <s>or through</s> </u>

That works... your words.

If you chose to violate the foot over the spot requirement, that's fine with me.
mick

Can't be a PC because there is no player control(or team control)on a throw-in.Ball is alive,though,so I guess you could call a common foul.I'd probably lie my way out of this one--I'd find some kind of violation.:DHeckuva question,Drake!

Not to wake sleeping giants, but:

FIVE SECOND CALL!!

:D

Mick, Should officials be able to take part of a rule such as the "Designate throw-in spot" rule and apply it to parts of another rule such as the "throw-in" rule? Under definitions, rule 4-41 makes a distincion between "Throw-in and Designated Spot". Do we take the philosophy of; if the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then assume the player can? Or are we to take the philosophy of just because the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then we will apply parts of a another rule to cover the situation? I'm not trying to be a smart-xxx, I'm attempting to put what you are say in prospective.

Mick

Go back and reread NFHS situation 1. It is telling you where to take the ball OOB, it has nothing to do with the designated spot. It says that based on where the foul happened that you take it to the endline in cases b & d, in a & c you take it to the sideline.

Bart. I like where you are going with philosophy.

My philosophy is that unless specifically prohibited by rule then it must be legal. There are very few rules that tell you what a legal play is, most of the rules tell you what an illegal play is.

Let's take slapping the backboard. Unless it is intentional and causes the backboard to vibrate (the rule 10 thing) then by deduction all other slaps to the backboard are legal even if they cause an unfair advantage by causing the ball to stay out of the basket.

remember when they changed the rule about interlocking players to make it illegal. It was legal until some coaches got creative. so now it is a banned activity.

Compression shorts/t-sirts all had unrestricted rules until the fed restricted them.

This is where I have seen officials get in the trouble. What do you say when there is a complaint or question that someone says show me where in the book it states you cant do that?

[B]Mick, Should officials be able to take part of a rule such as the "Designate throw-in spot" rule and apply it to parts of another rule such as the "throw-in" rule? Under definitions, rule 4-41 makes a distincion between "Throw-in and Designated Spot". </b>

If a distinction was made between an end line throw-in and a designated spot, then I missed it.
<hr>

<b>Do we take the philosophy of; if the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then assume the player can? Or are we to take the philosophy of just because the rule doesn't say a player can't do something then we will apply parts of a another rule to cover the situation?</b>

If we are assured the rules makers are omniscient, then we may subscribe to the former.
If we question the literal perfection of the rules, then our alternative may be the latter.
<hr>

<b> I'm not trying to be a smart-xxx, I'm attempting to put what you are say in prospective.</b>

I know you aren't. ;) Neither am I.
My main problem is that I fail to understand <u>why</u> the requirements of a running throw-in would deviate <u>without explanation</u>, but with regard to spirit and intent, from a designated spot throw-in with regard to requiring a foot over the throw-in spot, when the other variables of running, and passing to a teammate, other teammates out-of-bounds, and change in width are specifically noted.
mick

Kelvin,
Yeah, I read it many times and I see that implication.
But, not once have I questioned the "designated spot" and it's prohibitions.
I question the variances between Designated spot and the running throw-in. All the differences are noted, but not the presumed variable for the foot over the spot.

I do not see where an end line thrower may go back to the wall, but a designated spot thrower does, by rule, have no depth limitation. Since it is specific to one, is it automatically specific to the other?
If the depth limitation applies to both, then why does the foot over the throw-in boundary not apply to both?
mick

Good point Mick. I havn't checked the Depth wording.