You put it down, wrong team picks it up

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Nevada:

This is just another case of an interpretation made by people who do not know the rules.

No, it was another case of you not knowing the rule until Nevada clued you in. And now that you (hopefully) do know it, (hopefully) you will now follow it if the situation ever does come up- whether you happen to like or agree with the interpretation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old_School

No, it was another case of you not knowing the rule until Nevada clued you in. And now that you (hopefully) do know it, (hopefully) you will now follow it if the situation ever does come up- whether you happen to like or agree with the interpretation.

Wow. Are you serious? "Another case" of MTD not knowing the rule? You got another one, highhorse?

[Texas Aggie]

Physical possession of the ball has nothing to do with the play.

You might want to clarify this statement since the rule in question says, "touches...the ball while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate..."

You might have a T on this play if its the second warning. I had this happen once years ago. You HAVE to prevent the defensive player from coming to get the ball. I always say, "this is NOT your ball; don't touch it."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

You might want to clarify this statement since the rule in question says, "touches...the ball while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate..."

You might have a T on this play if its the second warning. I had this happen once years ago. You HAVE to prevent the defensive player from coming to get the ball. I always say, "this is NOT your ball; don't touch it."

What is the consequence of not being a preventative official in this case?

Secondly, there is no "second warning". There is one warning only, and then by rule, if it happens again, it is a T.

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

rlarry:

Play #1: Team A has been awarded a throw-in after a timeout. The administering official has placed the ball at A1's disposable by bouncing the ball to A1 and A1 catches the ball. B1, who is guarding A1, steps out-of-bounds and grabs the ball out of A1's hands.

Play #2: Team A has been awarded a throw-in after a timeout. Team A does not leave its huddle after the timeout ends and the administering official has placed the ball at A1's disposable by placing the ball on the floor. B1 steps out-of-bounds and grabs the ball.

What is the difference between Play #1 and Play #2.

MTD, Sr.

There is no difference. Isn't the ball at A's disposal once the RPP begins? So whether B1 reaches across the plane or steps OOB to get the ball, it's a warning if it's the 1st violation or TF if it's the 2nd.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Old_School

No, it was another case of you not knowing the rule until Nevada clued you in. And now that you (hopefully) do know it, (hopefully) you will now follow it if the situation ever does come up- whether you happen to like or agree with the interpretation.

OS:

Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It has been a long year (believe me it has and it is still not over yet, come to think of it the basketball season never ends), and it is a new interpretation that was added to the NFHS Casebook this school year that I forgot. Plus, as I stated in my post that I have not had this situation happen in a game in a number of years. And that based upon the rules, I handled it correctly (in my humble opinion). And based upon my number of years as a student of the rules of the game, the interpretation can not be supported by rule.

NFHS R9-S2, Penalty 3 specifically specifies a ball that is possession of the thrower, and yes the ball is not in possession of the thrower in the play being discussed, BUT none of the penalties in NFHS R9-S2 cover the play being discussed and it is my humble opinion that hanging one's hat on the "while in the possession of the thrower" clause is a very flimsy position to take in this play.

And of course if you are a reincarnation of our group's favorite Old School, then you have never been one for backing up a ruling with rule support.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

There is no difference. Isn't the ball at A's disposal once the RPP begins? So whether B1 reaches across the plane or steps OOB to get the ball, it's a warning if it's the 1st violation or TF if it's the 2nd.

WreckRef:

My question was a rhetorical question and you and I are on the same page and wavelength.

MTD, Sr.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Reading the OP, I see a distinct difference in the action. That's why I'm throwing the idea between the two out there and see what everyone has to say. There is no case play for what happened in the OP, and the case play that has been presented doesn't seem to fit the OP. I know Mark makes a good case for the warning because of the prevention of A's ability to make the throw-in, and I would almost go along with that thought process. The OP and the lack of case play basically brings into play some thought process on our part.

The violation is for B having any part of their body through the plane; it has nothing to do with reaching through. Therefore the violation occurs when B walks out of bounds to pick up the ball.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

I actually had this exact scenario play out this year in a girls JV game. Partner was administering the throw-in. A was late coming back to the floor. Once he put it down and blew his whistle, A came running over to get it. Be then ALSO ran for the ball, and got there first and threw it in. Partner blew his whistle and then looked at me with one of those "What do we have here?" looks. I just turned to the table and issued a warning for delay because it felt like the right thing to do. And, given the book citations in this thread, sounds like we got it right. I forgot to go back and confirm later what the right thing to do was.