Strange happening on Throw-in following basket...

[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.

[Texas Aggie]

If the ball has been RELEASED by the person throwing it in, there is no delay and no T. Just make the simple violation call from 9-3-2 and be done with it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If the ball has been RELEASED by the person throwing it in, there is no delay and no T. Just make the simple violation call from 9-3-2 and be done with it.

You're not agreeing with Bob.

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.