Call in Indiana State Finals

[mutantducky]

i think, and shame on me if I get this wrong because I've asked something similar or the exact same thing, is that no violation occurred.

wouldn't the second one just be a violation so the ball goes to the other team?

[referee99]

the throw-in ended when the ball was legally touched inbounds.
if no team control existed when and if there was an IW, then the officials should have gone to the AP arrow.

in your hypo, team control existed when whistle blew, ball goes to that team.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

wouldn't the second one just be a violation so the ball goes to the other team?

Why would the "second one" be a violation?

[Indianaref]

I was at the game, the backcourt touch was definitely not a start of a dribble. I thought they had used the A/P, I could be wrong. The official that made the call is a 38 year veteran in our Assoc., he has 3 state finals to his credit. Same official had a block call moments later that Bloomington South crowd didn't like at all. Rough 4th Q for sure. Credit to the crew to come together and overrule the violation.

[mutantducky]

never mind- misread that

wouldn't the second one just be a violation so the ball goes to the other team?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

never mind- misread that

wouldn't the second one just be a violation so the ball goes to the other team?

I repeat - why would the "second one" be a violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

I was at the game, the backcourt touch was definitely not a start of a dribble. I thought they had used the A/P, I could be wrong. The official that made the call is a 38 year veteran in our Assoc., he has 3 state finals to his credit. Same official had a block call moments later that Bloomington South crowd didn't like at all. Rough 4th Q for sure. Credit to the crew to come together and overrule the violation.

So how old is he?

[mutantducky]

As a hypothetical, supposing everything else stays the same (including the IW) except Bloomington's point guard grabs (possesses) the ball when in the backcourt, would that be considered POI, and the correct call would be giving the ball back to Bloomington, without invoking the arrow?


I meant misread as it wouldn't be a violation.

[Adam]

yes

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

As a hypothetical, supposing everything else stays the same (including the IW) except Bloomington's point guard grabs (possesses) the ball when in the backcourt, would that be considered POI, and the correct call would be giving the ball back to Bloomington, without invoking the arrow?


I meant misread as it wouldn't be a violation.

POI is the correct way to resume the game in either case. Please understand that if there isn't team control and the throw-in has ended, then using the arrow is the POI.

Why is the POI rule so difficult for people? It's just a three step checklist.
1. Is there team control? Yes = award a throw-in to that team. No = go to step 2.
2. Did the stoppage occur during a FT or throw-in or when one is pending?
Yes = resume play with that FT or throw-in. No = go to step 3.
3. USE THE AP ARROW.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

POI is the correct way to resume the game in either case. Please understand that if there isn't team control and the throw-in has ended, then using the arrow is the POI.

Why is the POI rule so difficult for people? It's just a three step checklist.
1. Is there team control? Yes = award a throw-in to that team. No = go to step 2.
2. Did the stoppage occur during a FT or throw-in or when one is pending?
Yes = resume play with that FT or throw-in. No = go to step 3.
3. USE THE AP ARROW.

Unfortunately, for SOME people, going beyond step 1 is just toooooo fricking difficult because it pains their grey matter that rattles around in their numbskulls.