Strange happening on Throw-in following basket...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Then unless there's a rule I'm unfamiliar with, a T is not the appropriate call.

Under FED rules, the defender is allowed to contact the ball once it's been released. 9-2-10.

That said, I'm "sure" the rule assumes the "normal" throw-in scenario -- The inbounder is OOB and all defensive players are inbounds. And, while I wouldn't penalize the defense just foe being OOB (since s/he went out legally), I don't think the intent is to allow the player to "take advantage" of that situation. So, I could perhaps see a delay warning.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Under FED rules, the defender is allowed to contact the ball once it's been released. 9-2-10.

That said, I'm "sure" the rule assumes the "normal" throw-in scenario -- The inbounder is OOB and all defensive players are inbounds. And, while I wouldn't penalize the defense just foe being OOB (since s/he went out legally), I don't think the intent is to allow the player to "take advantage" of that situation. So, I could perhaps see a delay warning.

Agreed, my thoughts until I read your post.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Under FED rules, the defender is allowed to contact the ball once it's been released. 9-2-10.

That said, I'm "sure" the rule assumes the "normal" throw-in scenario -- The inbounder is OOB and all defensive players are inbounds. And, while I wouldn't penalize the defense just foe being OOB (since s/he went out legally), I don't think the intent is to allow the player to "take advantage" of that situation. So, I could perhaps see a delay warning.

Bob, I agree with the you that there is not an intent to allow A1 to take advantage of being out of bounds, but I am curious as to how you can justify a delay of game warning since, strictly speaking, the delay of game warning on throw-ins is limited to breaking the plane while not making contact with the ball (Technical) or inbounder (foul).

I know that there have been several other "delaying" situations in which we have determined that a delay-of-game warning is not appropriate -- for example, the case of the FT in which the defensive team does not occupy the first positions, etc.

How can we justify a DOG warning in this case?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

How can we justify a DOG warning in this case?

I'm not Bob. But here's my guess about his answer: a DOG warning is appropriate when the defense crosses the plane of the end line. Ordinarily, a player out of bounds after a layup would not warrant it. But, I surmise, Bob is thinking the present situation would warrant more than just an OOB call.

I agree. Think of it this way: by the defender making this play, he puts the other team at a disadvantage. On the initial throw-in, they could run the end line. After OOB it's a spot throw-in.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree. Think of it this way: by the defender making this play, he puts the other team at a disadvantage. On the initial throw-in, they could run the end line. After OOB it's a spot throw-in.

True. Team B lost the end line run, but I am asking for the rule/case that allows us to give a DOG warning in this case. Other than committing a violation, A1 does not seem to have broken any rule. He legally left the court. He was attempting to quickly get back onto the court. Then, after the ball left the inbounder's hand, he batted the ball. Unfortunately, he had not regained status inbounds, but I am struggling to find a rule/case that indicates a DOG warning, here.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

True. Team B lost the end line run, but I am asking for the rule/case that allows us to give a DOG warning in this case. Other than committing a violation, A1 does not seem to have broken any rule. He legally left the court. He was attempting to quickly get back onto the court. Then, after the ball left the inbounder's hand, he batted the ball. Unfortunately, he had not regained status inbounds, but I am struggling to find a rule/case that indicates a DOG warning, here.

By rule (don't have my books here), if the defense reaches across the line during a throw-in, we issue a DOG. Well, in the OP, the entire player was across the line during the throw-in.

Originally Posted by mbyron

By rule (don't have my books here), if the defense reaches across the line prior to the release of the ball during a throw-in, we issue a DOG. Well, in the OP, the entire player was across the line during the throw-in.

Fixed it
Not to nit-pick, just so the newer officials have all the criteria.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

By rule (don't have my books here), if the defense reaches across the line during a throw-in, we issue a DOG. Well, in the OP, the entire player was across the line during the throw-in.

Only IF the defense reaches across the line BEFORE the ball is released. The player made no play on the ball while returning to the court UNTIL the ball was released. At that point, contact with the ball (by a player on the court defending the inbounder) through the plane is legal, correct?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Only IF the defense reaches across the line BEFORE the ball is released. The player made no play on the ball while returning to the court UNTIL the ball was released. At that point, contact with the ball (by a player on the court defending the inbounder) through the plane is legal, correct?

Correct, as Ch1town points out. Still, in the OP the player is across the line before the ball is released.

I made my response before the OP clarified the ball had been released. The way the OP sounded, I thought the ball hadn't been released. That's why I said T. But now I've seen the clarification, it's just a simple OOB.

DOG could be justified, but it would be one of those HTBT things. If A1 quickly moved in front of B5 and never went in-bounds, then I would have DOG because A1 is entirely over the line. If A1 did all of this from behind (slapping the ball OOB), then DOG would not be justified because B5 would not have been impeded. Think advantage/disadvantage here.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Think of it this way: by the defender making this play, he puts the other team at a disadvantage. On the initial throw-in, they could run the end line. After OOB it's a spot throw-in.

Makes good sense, nice pick-up!
Any similar case plays out there??

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by mbyron

On the initial throw-in, they could run the end line. After OOB it's a spot throw-in.

This might be a stretch, but couldn't we rule that the defensive team violated during the throw-in? Therefore, team A would maintain the right to run the endline (similar to a kick). The ball was never legally touched.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Bob, I agree with the you that there is not an intent to allow A1 to take advantage of being out of bounds, but I am curious as to how you can justify a delay of game warning since, strictly speaking, the delay of game warning on throw-ins is limited to breaking the plane while not making contact with the ball (Technical) or inbounder (foul).

I'm not saying that I would call the DOG warning.

But, if we take the (very slow developing play) where A1 crosses the line, then B1 releases the ball, then A1 makes contact with the ball -- it's clearly a DOG warning.

So, while I'd give A1 some slack for being OOB when the throw-in starts, I think A1 might lose that slack if s/he then gains an advantage from it -- namely contacting the ball. It's kind of a "delayed violation / warning."

I think it's really a 2-3 situation -- but I could see the NFHS coming out with an interp that makes it a DOG.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm not saying that I would call the DOG warning.

But, if we take the (very slow developing play) where A1 crosses the line, then B1 releases the ball, then A1 makes contact with the ball -- it's clearly a DOG warning.

So, while I'd give A1 some slack for being OOB when the throw-in starts, I think A1 might lose that slack if s/he then gains an advantage from it -- namely contacting the ball. It's kind of a "delayed violation / warning."

I think it's really a 2-3 situation -- but I could see the NFHS coming out with an interp that makes it a DOG.

Makes sense. This situation has generated some interesting discussion in our area. Perhaps a Case Book Sitch for 2009-10.