Out of Bounds?

[jsblanton]

I understand when the ball becomes live during a throw-in. I understand when the throw-in ends. I even understand when a throw-in violation may occur. What I don't understand is if team A is awarded a throw-in,during which A1 holds the ball throught the boundry line plan and B1 grabs the ball. Why is there not an out-of-bounds violation called on A1? I know I am missing something simple. Please help me out.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by jsblanton

I understand when the ball becomes live during a throw-in. I understand when tehe throw-in ends. I even understand when a throw-in violation may occur. What I don't understand is if team A is awarded a throw-in,during which A1 holds the ball throught the boundry line plan and B1 grabs the ball. Why is there not an out-of-bounds violation called on A1? I know I am missing something simple. Please help me out.

It has to do with the definition of a throw in (see Case Book definition 4.12). The ball is not live. This is the exact situation in the Case Book (7.6.4). "There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an AP throw-in."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

It has to do with the definition of a throw in (see Case Book definition 4.12). The ball is not live. This is the exact situation in the Case Book (7.6.4). "There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an AP throw-in."

Check again.

I'll add that the reasoning in the case play seems to me a non sequitur.

[Adam]

Until I find more, the reasoning is that a thrower is allowed to be out of bounds with the ball until the throwin pass is released. B1 touching the ball does not end this allowance.

Further, the case play 7.6.4F is definitive.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Check again.

I defer. According to 6.1.2 "The ball is live during a throw in." Thanks Snaqs! But, 7.6.4F still is correct for this situation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Further, the case play 7.6.4F is definitive.

7.6.4 Situation F: Thrower A1 inadvertently holds the ball through the end-line plane during a throw-in. B1 is able to get his/her hands on the ball and A cannot pull it back. Ruling: There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an alternating-possession throw-in. If the original throw-in is an alternating-possession throw-in, Team A still has the arrow following the held ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Until I find more, the reasoning is that a thrower is allowed to be out of bounds with the ball until the throwin pass is released. B1 touching the ball does not end this allowance.

Further, the case play 7.6.4F is definitive.

That is the correct reason. The thrower cannot be penalized for being OOB in this case because the throw-in rule not only permits, but actually mandates, that he be there.

Note the difference when A1 releases the ball on a throw-in pass, which then is deflected back an inbounds player and contacts him again while he is still OOB. That is a violation because once he throws the ball, he must return inbounds immediately. So after releasing the ball, he is subject to the OOB rule.


7.2.2 SITUATION:

A throw-in by A1 (a) strikes B1 who is inbounds and

rebounds in flight directly from B1 and then strikes A1 who is still out of bounds;
(b) is batted by B1, who is inbounds and the ball is next touched by A1 who is
still out of bounds. RULING: A1 caused the ball to go out of bounds and it is
awarded to Team B at that spot for a throw-in for both (a) and (b).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

7.6.4 Situation F: Thrower A1 inadvertently holds the ball through the end-line plane during a throw-in. B1 is able to get his/her hands on the ball and A cannot pull it back. Ruling: There is no player or team control during a throw in, therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an alternating-possession throw-in. If the original throw-in is an alternating-possession throw-in, Team A still has the arrow following the held ball.

I still can't believe they included this portion as the reasoning. It's completely stupid.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still can't believe they included this portion as the reasoning. It's completely stupid.

I noticed that also. Why is this part of the reasoning for the call?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I noticed that also. Why is this part of the reasoning for the call?

I don't know, but including it could lead some newer officials to infer that a player can't be called for OOB unless there is player or team control established. While this is definitively not true, the case play could lead to that conclusion.

[jsblanton]

I figured I was missing something simple. It all has to do with the fact the player has to be out of bounds during this specific sitch. Thanks to all who share their experience and knowledge of the greatest game.