Strange happening on Throw-in following basket...
 

A1 takes the ball to the basket for a lay-up. He makes the lay-up. His momentum carries him off of the floor. B5 gets the ball and attempts to take the throw-in. As B5 is releasing the ball, A1 leaps from behind B5 and slaps the ball. Keep in miind, A1's momentum carried him off of the floor. What do you have?

Technical foul. Doesn't matter where A1 is, he's still considered the same as if he was in-bounds.

I should add for clarity that the trail official felt that B5 had released the ball, but the ball was still clearly behind the plane of the OOB line when the ball was touched by A1.

Agreed...Technical.

Interesting question. I'll definitely be looking for others' responses to this one.

First, a couple questions. Had the ball been released? If not, was it beyond the boundary when it was slapped by A1?

These are the important questions. It can't be a T if the ball had been released. It also can't be a T if the ball is across the boundary, even if it hasn't been released. If the ball was released and A1 hit it, I'd just have an OB violation on A1, and B would get the ball for a spot throw-in. If the ball hadn't been released but was across the boundary, I'd probably go with a boundary plane delay warning on the principle that the throw-in hadn't been released and A was across the boundary when making the play on the ball.

If the ball hasn't been released and is outside the boundary, this is a T.

All this is predicated on the fact that A1 was attempting to come right back onto the court and not unduly delaying his return.

Yes, the ball had been released. No, it was not beyond the boundary.

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

I'm letting A play it, but if he's coming from OB, then he's probably OB when he hits the ball. Violation, B's ball for a designated spot throw-in.

By the way, what did your partner rule?

That being said, no T just an OOB violation on A1 as he didn't establish being inbounds yet.

You are where you are 'til you get where you're going.

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.

Because you said "as B5 is releasing the ball", I take it to mean that without the actions of A5, the release is imminent, but still in B5's hands. Contacting the ball with the ball over OB is a technical foul. Bad play by A1.

If the ball had already been released, then it is an OB violation on A1. B's throw-in, without the use of the endline. In this case, nice play by A1. I don't have a penalty against A1 because A1 was legally OB.

Agreed, my thoughts until I read your post.

Partner ruled that A1 had not established status in bounds, therefore, when he touched the ball it was a violation. B throw-in at the spot.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. :eek:

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.

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.

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.