Putting the ball in play...

[MatthewPV]

Player A has the ball ready to throw it in. (A) Player A bounces the ball, but hits his foot and on the fly crossed over the endline and lands inbounds or (B) Player A bounces the ball, but hits his foot and bounces twice before crossing the endline.

I believe the ball is live in (A) and a violation in (B). Do I have this one right?

[wanja]

Originally Posted by MatthewPV

Player A has the ball ready to throw it in. (A) Player A bounces the ball, but hits his foot and on the fly crossed over the endline and lands inbounds or (B) Player A bounces the ball, but hits his foot and bounces twice before crossing the endline.

I believe the ball is live in (A) and a violation in (B). Do I have this one right?

Violation in A and B.

9-2-2 The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court...

9-2-4 Once the throw-in starts, the ball shall be released on a pass directly into the court...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by wanja

Violation in A and B.

9-2-2 The ball shall be passed by the thrower directly into the court...

9-2-4 Once the throw-in starts, the ball shall be released on a pass directly into the court...

I suppose that the case could be made in A that the the ball did go directly from the thrower into the court if he/she bounced it only off their own body and it went directly into the court.

[grunewar]

Could, should, shall, will, may, might, must, sometimes, always, never......ah, it must be exam time........

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I suppose that the case could be made in A that the the ball did go directly from the thrower into the court if he/she bounced it only off their own body and it went directly into the court.

You could make that case, but 9-2-2 and 9-2-4 require that the release constitute a pass: can you pass with your foot, or any other body part than your hand?

Hint: 4-39 says that "A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player." The case could be made that only hands can throw, bat, or roll.

[Nevadaref]

There is an NCAA case ruling which says to stop play and readminister the throw-in. The NFHS doesn't have such a ruling, but does have a very similar one for a FT.

I'm of the opinion that if the player screws up and loses the ball after having clear control, then that is his fault and he doesn't deserve another chance.

I would allow play to continue in case (a), but call a throw-in violation in case (b).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS doesn't have such a ruling, but does have a very similar one for a FT.

NFHS 9.1.1 SITUATION: A1, at the free-throw line to attempt a free throw: (a) muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) while performing his/her habitual dribbles prior to the release, accidentally allows the ball to deflect off his/her foot into the lane. RULING: In (a), the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations and then start the free throw procedure again. No freethrow violation should be called in this situation. In (b), a free-throw violation shall be called on A1. (9-1-3a, e)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MatthewPV

Player A has the ball ready to throw it in.
(A) Player A bounces the ball, but hits his foot and on the fly crossed over the endline and lands inbounds.
(B) Player A bounces the ball, but hits his foot and bounces twice before crossing the endline.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm of the opinion that if the player screws up and loses the ball after having clear control, then that is his fault and he doesn't deserve another chance. I would allow play to continue in case (a), but call a throw-in violation in case (b).

Why would you allow (a) without calling a violation? I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I just need some convincing, maybe with a rulebook or casebook reference. Please.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is an NCAA case ruling which says to stop play and readminister the throw-in. The NFHS doesn't have such a ruling, but does have a very similar one for a FT.

I'd like to see that NFHS case. Can you provide a reference?

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is an NCAA case ruling which says to stop play and readminister the throw-in.

Here's the NCAA case:

A.R. 175. A1, on a throw-in from a designated spot, fumbles. A1 leaves the designated spot to retrieve the fumble. Is this a violation?

RULING: No. Since there was a fumble, the official shall blow his/ her whistle, which causes the ball to become dead, and then shall re-administer the throw-in. (Rule 4-31.1 and 7-6.5)

And here's an issue I have with this. Suppose that team B is putting a lot of pressure on the throw-in. You reach 4 seconds when A1 fumbles the ball. Doesn't that give an extra advantage to A, who gets a new 5 second count when you re-administer?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MatthewPV

Player A has the ball ready to throw it in. Player A bounces the ball, but hits his foot and bounces twice before crossing the endline.

Several members have commented that this is a violation. They're probably correct. However, since a throwin player is allowed to intentionally dribble the ball out of bounds before making the throwin, isn't that player also allowed to make an interrupted dribble out of bounds, within his designated spot, before making a throwin? What if it's a run the endline throwin? Also, if it is a violation, and it probably is, exactly when does the violation occur, when the ball hits the foot, when the ball hits out of bounds after it hits the foot, when the ball crosses the endline, or at some other time? In this post, for simplicity reasons, I'm assuming that the player is intentionally dribbling the ball, and that's this is not a fumble. Making it a fumble, I believe, would further complicate matters.

[Adam]

I'm going to chime in with this. If it takes serious logical gymnastics to come up with why it's a violation when it happens so rarely as to never likely occur during a given official's career, let it go.

Chances are, when it does happen, the player who muffed it will be the first to touch it after it lands in bounds anyway, and you can call that violation. For the even fewer cases where the player is heady enough to let it bounce and there happens to be a teammate in bounds near by, give them the benefit of the doubt for their quick thinking.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

When it happens so rarely as to never likely occur during a given official's career, let it go.

Where's the fun in that?