FIBA - division line throw-in violation

[JugglingReferee]

FIBA - Inbounds to start the half they have the right to straddle and go either way. Inbounder proceeds to throw the ball directly out of bounds on the front court baseline. Violation, obviously, ball comes back to mid-court, does the new inbounder have the right to go either way?

A citation is appreciated.

[Adam]

I know this isn't helpful, Juggler, but I have to say this is perhaps the dumbest rule in FIBA.

[JugglingReferee]

What rule? TC during a TI?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

FIBA - Inbounds to start the half they have the right to straddle and go either way. Inbounder proceeds to throw the ball directly out of bounds on the front court baseline. Violation, obviously, ball comes back to mid-court, does the new inbounder have the right to go either way?

A citation is appreciated.

Juggling Referee:

I will try to help you out with citations. The rules are unclear but it has always been my understanding that any throw-in that requires the thrower to straddle the division line extended can throw to either his team's frontcourt or backcourt.

You might want to read FIBA R4-A10 and A11, and R5-A22 and A30.

MTD, Sr.

[NICK]

Yes, JR. BTW, team control starts as soon as player has ball ready for throw-in- cheers

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

FIBA - Inbounds to start the half they have the right to straddle and go either way. Inbounder proceeds to throw the ball directly out of bounds on the front court baseline. Violation, obviously, ball comes back to mid-court, does the new inbounder have the right to go either way?

A citation is appreciated.

FIBA Official Interpretations 2008; article 17, statement 4

There are additional situations to those listed in Art. 17.2.3 in which the subsequent throw-in shall be taken from the centre line extended, opposite the scorer’s table:
(a) A player making the throw-in from the centre line extended opposite the scorer’s table commits a violation and the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the place of the original throw-in.
(b) … (fighting) …

Interpretation: In all the above situations the thrower-in can pass the ball to either the frontcourt or the backcourt.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Juggling Referee:

I will try to help you out with citations. The rules are unclear but it has always been my understanding that any throw-in that requires the thrower to straddle the division line extended can throw to either his team's frontcourt or backcourt.

You might want to read FIBA R4-A10 and A11, and R5-A22 and A30.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by NICK

Yes, JR. BTW, team control starts as soon as player has ball ready for throw-in- cheers

Originally Posted by eg-italy

FIBA Official Interpretations 2008; article 17, statement 4

Thanks to each of you.

So then the throw-in spot remains to be "straddling the division line" when B gets a throw-in because A violated.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

What rule? TC during a TI?

Nah, the NCAA does that. I'm talking about the extension of FC and BC into the OOB area.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nah, the NCAA does that. I'm talking about the extension of FC and BC into the OOB area.

Why would you qualify this rule as dumb?

As a result of good defence in the FC, the ball is deflected OOB. Give me a good reason why the offence is allowed to throw in their BC.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

So then the throw-in spot remains to be "straddling the division line" when B gets a throw-in because A violated.

Yes. These should be all the cases in which a throw-in is from the division line extended (and the ball can be thrown in the BC):
(1) start of a period, except the first but including overtimes;
(2) after a technical foul;
(3) after an unsportsmanlike foul;
(4) when the ball is advanced after a time-out in the last two minutes of the fourth period or overtimes;
(5) when penalties offset after a fight;
(6) when there is a throw-in violation during a throw-in from the division line.

During such a throw-in the player is allowed to move (1 meter), but this does not change the character of the throw-in, so the ball can be thrown in the BC even if both feet of the player are adjacent to the FC because of this movement. However, officials should hand the ball only to a player who is straddling the division line, thus making clear the character of this throw-in.

Similarly, if the spot throw-in is near the division line but in the FC and the player moves in the allotted space ending with both feet adjacent to the BC, they're not allowed to pass the ball in the BC: it's the original spot that counts.

Ciao

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Why would you qualify this rule as dumb?

As a result of good defence in the FC, the ball is deflected OOB. Give me a good reason why the offence is allowed to throw in their BC.

I think your premise is flawed. There are too many reasons the ball could be out in the defense's back court that have nothing to do with good defense. Maybe they committed a 8 second violation (10 seconds in the US). Maybe they threw it out of bounds. Maybe they traveled in the backcourt. Maybe they committed a foul resulting in a throw-in.

Good defense would result in a steal or offensive foul. Adequate defense could result in a ball deflected out of bounds.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think your premise is flawed. There are too many reasons the ball could be out in the defense's back court that have nothing to do with good defense. Maybe they committed a 8 second violation (10 seconds in the US). Maybe they threw it out of bounds. Maybe they traveled in the backcourt. Maybe they committed a foul resulting in a throw-in.

Good defense would result in a steal or offensive foul. Adequate defense could result in a ball deflected out of bounds.

I was talking of a good defence when the ball has FC status. Call it adequate, if you prefer. Why should the offence be allowed to pass in their BC?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

I was talking of a good defence when the ball has FC status. Call it adequate, if you prefer. Why should the offence be allowed to pass in their BC?

Because that's only one of several reasons there would be a throwin in the offense's FC. Why reward the defense for committing a foul, or for kicking the ball, or for committing a violation in their backcourt?

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Because that's only one of several reasons there would be a throwin in the offense's FC. Why reward the defense for committing a foul, or for kicking the ball, or for committing a violation in their backcourt?

I guess you're not a fan of the shot-clock rule as they changed it in the NCAA, which precisely "rewards" the defense for kicking the ball, for example.

Talking FIBA, the offence has already had their 8 seconds in the BC, so they're bound to remain in the FC. I don't see anything "dumb" in this. There are dumber rules, IMO (the location of a player can be both in the BC and in the FC, for example). Don't take for dumb anything simply unusual.

Ciao

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

I guess you're not a fan of the shot-clock rule as they changed it in the NCAA, which precisely "rewards" the defense for kicking the ball, for example.

Talking FIBA, the offence has already had their 8 seconds in the BC, so they're bound to remain in the FC. I don't see anything "dumb" in this. There are dumber rules, IMO (the location of a player can be both in the BC and in the FC, for example). Don't take for dumb anything simply unusual.

Ciao

Yes, the dual location (FC and BC) confused me a bit too. I understand the goal of the rule, and the restirctions that FIBA is trying to place, but their method to do it, although necessary, isn't the easiest rule to pick up.