Jump ball goes in?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would take exception to that.
Check the text of 4-3.

Doesn't 4-3-1 back up Snaq's point? B1 would be the first player who secures control.

Unless you're saying somehow A1 had possession in order to make the basket? If so, wouldn't that be a violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Doesn't 4-3-1 back up Snaq's point? B1 would be the first player who secures control.

Nope. B1 doesn't have control. He is OOB for a throw-in. For control a player must be holding or dribbling a live ball INBOUNDS. The thrower can't do that.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope. B1 doesn't have control. He is OOB for a throw-in. For control a player must be holding or dribbling a live ball INBOUNDS. The thrower can't do that.

Ok, I see what your saying, but I'm not entirely convinced this is a "player-control" issue. The wording in 4-3-1 is slightly different, in that it says, "A player secures control of the ball, as after the jump ball." Why wouldn't the wording say "Player control is established"? That is certainly able to be determined by rule.

This way, the initial AP direction cannot be determined until after the following throw-in has been possessed by a player in-bounds (not just touched), which means either team could end up with the arrow, even though a basket has been scored, and the throw-in has been completed. That just seems strange.

[Adam]

OK, don't have that rule book thingy handy, but I see a precedent for this with the setting of the arrow following a JB violation. It gets set when the throwin starts.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, I see what your saying, but I'm not entirely convinced this is a "player-control" issue. The wording in 4-3-1 is slightly different, in that it says, "A player secures control of the ball, as after the jump ball." Why wouldn't the wording say "Player control is established"? That is certainly able to be determined by rule.

It uses the words "player" and "control." While it may not be phrased as concretely as you would wish, there isn't any other way to interpret it.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This way, the initial AP direction cannot be determined until after the following throw-in has been possessed by a player in-bounds (not just touched), which means either team could end up with the arrow, even though a basket has been scored, and the throw-in has been completed. That just seems strange.

Yep, when strange things happen the rules sometimes get strange too.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

OK, don't have that rule book thingy handy, but I see a precedent for this with the setting of the arrow following a JB violation. It gets set when the throwin starts.

The only way that you could do that is by the power in 2-3 because the article that provides instruction on how to set the arrow when the throw-in begins clearly enumerates three cases in which it is to be used, and all of them involve either a foul or a violation. In the made goal scenario, neither team fouled or violated. So you can't use those provisions. In order to invoke 2-3 you would have to take the stance that there is no coverage in the rules book for this situation, and the referee is going to make a decision based upon an analogous situation.

PS I wouldn't disagree with that stance.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The only way that you could do that is by the power in 2-3 because the article that provides instruction on how to set the arrow when the throw-in begins clearly enumerates three cases in which it is to be used, and all of them involve either a foul or a violation. In the made goal scenario, neither team fouled or violated. So you can't use those provisions. In order to invoke 2-3 you would have to take the stance that there is no coverage in the rules book for this situation, and the referee is going to make a decision based upon an analogous situation.

PS I wouldn't disagree with that stance.

I agree. I was using it as a precedent only, to use with 2-3 to make a decision.

[just another ref]

I declare this situation to be impossible, and thus unworthy of further discussion.