Buy your way out of violation?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The official should not grant the time-out request as it was made at an improper time. Per 5-8-3 the ball must be dead, a player from the team must have control, or the ball must be at the disposal of the requesting team. After the free-thrower loses the ball none of those conditions exist.

Really? I wasn't aware of a rule that said "at the disposal of" ends if the free-thrower loses control. Is this also true on a throw-in?

A1 has the ball for a throw-in, starts to pass and thinks twice. He fumbles it away, still OOB, but out of his 3 foot spot. Is it still at his disposal? Can they request a TO?

What about an endline throw-in?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Really? I wasn't aware of a rule that said "at the disposal of" ends if the free-thrower loses control. Is this also true on a throw-in?

That is the basic point of the new case play ruling. If the FTer can no longer reach the ball, then it's clearly not at his disposal. If he sets it down within the semi-circle, then that's okay.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A1 has the ball for a throw-in, starts to pass and thinks twice. He fumbles it away, still OOB, but out of his 3 foot spot. Is it still at his disposal? Can they request a TO?

If the ball goes out of his three-foot spot, he can't go get it without violating, so it's no longer at his disposal. No disposal = no time-out.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What about an endline throw-in?

I have maintained that if the ball is somewhere that the player is allowed, then it's at his disposal. So anywhere behind the end line is ok in this case.

[Adam]

So this is just intuitive thinking on your part, not really a solid rule basis. I'm not knocking it, it makes sense, just trying to grasp it.

[Nevadaref]

It has always been clear to me. I found it strange that the case book used to say to stop the game and give the ball back to the FTer without any penalty, but that's what I did because that was what the ruling said to do.
Now I don't that anymore.

He lost it. It's no longer at his disposal. Seems simple and logical to me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It has always been clear to me. I found it strange that the case book used to say to stop the game and give the ball back to the FTer without any penalty, but that's what I did because that was what the ruling said to do.
Now I don't that anymore.

He lost it. It's no longer at his disposal. Seems simple and logical to me.

I took a different reasoning for the case play; it prevents a defender from having to grab it and toss it away. Just call the violation. I agree with your bewilderment on the previous case play.

Your reasoning actually makes more sense to me, though.