You put it down, wrong team picks it up

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2008-09 NFHS Basketball Case Book
*7.5.1 SITUATION B: Team A does not break the huddle after the second horn
for a 60-second time-out. The official puts the ball down at the designated spot
and begins the five-second count. The administering official is between four and
five on the count when Team B reaches over the boundary and grabs the ball.
RULING: Delay-of-game warning on Team B for reaching across the plane. No
Team A member ever possessed the ball for the throw-in; therefore, a technical
foul would not be assessed. (9-2 Penalty 3)


"No Team A member ever possessed the ball for the throw-in" as stated in the above case play.
It is a new ruling for this year, so perhaps you just learned something new!

Nevada:

First, I went back to my OP and edited it so it made sense. Second, I am getting old and senile. I really do not like the ruling in NFHS Casebook Play 7.5.1 SITUATION B. Physical possession of the ball has nothing to do with the play. I have had this situation occur in the past (it has been a few years since the last time it happened; I even had in occur in a girls' varsity game) and each time I issued a team warning for delay of game if one had not been given and charged the player with a TF for delay of game. Whether B1 grabs the ball out of A1's hands or picks the ball up off of the floor B1's action is a delay of game that prevents Team A from completing or attempting to make a throw-in. This is just another case of an interpretation made by people who do not know the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[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?

[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.