Makes sense. Thanks for breaking down like that.

Not so fast.

What is the definition of a pass? A ball that is thrown, batted, or rolled to another player. If it goes to another player, isn't that essentially a pass? Since it was on a throwin, doesn't that make it a throw-in pass?

If the ball leaves the area of the thrower, I'm most likely deeming it a pass. If it bounces OOB away from the spot, then it is a throw-in violation.

If it's just floating around in the throwin spot, are you going to consider it a pass just because the defense reaches in and gets it? By that definition, my sitch with A1 dribbling during the throwin and B1 reaching across and stealing it would make be a throwin violation on A1.

We've discussed this play before. The NCAA has a play ruling which directs the official to stop play and re-administer the throw-in, the NFHS does not.
Therefore, the thrower fumbling the ball away from the designated-spot has to be treated as failing to throw the ball directly into the court and is a throw-in violation.


I'm glad that you put "dribbling" in quotation marks because technically the action isn't a dribble. According to Fundamental #5 the dribbling rule does not operate during a throw-in. Therefore, this is merely bouncing the ball on the floor at an OOB location.

Yes.

If the ball has left the designated-throw-in spot, then yes.

I made your argument in post #2 as well. But the impossibility of A otherwise recovering is what leads me to call a violation on A.

The ball has left the throw-in spot. No other A player may retrieve it, and so A1 is committed to either waiting 5 seconds or to leaving the spot to retrieve the ball.

I won't fudge and say that A1's fumble is a "pass not directly into the court," because it's not a pass at all. And I agree that it's fishy to penalize A "prematurely." He11, the whole case stinks, which is why we need to back up and ask who erred first.

I think penalizing A is a better alternative than penalizing B, who could not have violated without A's prior error. IMO this is not the intended application of the rule prohibiting reaching across the plane during a throw in, and certainly not a garden-variety instance.

Due to A1's error, A cannot legally complete the throw in here, and B preventing the actual violation does not change that fact.

I agree with this, assuming the ball is so far outside the throwin spot that A can't reach it without leaving it. Consider the case play we're all using for precedent. If A1, during his free throw, does the same thing as our proverbial thrower and the ball bounces outside his designated area but he is able to reach, without violating, and get the ball; but B3 steps into the lane and grabs the ball to hand it to the ref before A1 can reach and grab it.

Absolutely: get B3 for a plane violation on this one. Merely fumbling the ball is not a violation by A1, so if A1 can recover the ball and throw it in before 5 seconds have passed, the opportunity to do so should be unhindered.

NCAA and NFHS have different rulings for the same play. *New Case Play. Page 70, 9.2.1 Situation B, example b. After receiving the ball from the official, fumbles the ball and leaves the designated spot to retreive the fumble. Ruling:A throw-in violation shall be called on A1 for leaving the designated spot.
So, YES! NFHS does have a case ruling the play. Their interp is the violation for leaving the spot.
In my play, the ball caroms away from A1. The play happens so fast that B1 touches the ball on the OOB side of the boundary line before A1 leave the designated spot. A1 never throws/passes the ball. The only rule infraction I can see is that an opponent of the thrower reaches over the boundary line before the ball has been released on a throw-in pass and has touched the ball.:eek:

How far away from the spot was the ball when B1 reached across and got it?

Team A hadn't violated - yet
 

I agree with Zoochy. The violation on A had not occurred yet: leaving the designated spot or reaching the 5-second count. The only violation to be called is on B for crossing the boundary plane. After the ball was bobbled by A, couldn't A have called a time-out to save them from the eventual violation?

Ooh. Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

If the ball is rolling around, is it "in control or at the disposal of" A1, as required by 5-8-3a?

It's at the disposal, to be sure. However, the precedent of the free throw case play doesn't give A the opportunity to save the violation with a timeout. Which is odd, becuase on the freethrow RPP, they do have that opportunity.

twist...A1 intentionally sets the ball down within reach of the throw-in area say three feet away. B1 reaches through and grabs it...T on B1 right? could you have unsporting T on A1? granted B1 shouldn't take the bait, but this is obviously unusual and A1 intentionally would have done so to draw B1 into a tech.....this obviously for all of the coaches who roam this board:)

Well, I could be convinced otherwise, I suppose, with sufficient reasoning, but I can't imagine calling the T on A1 for this.

Based on what rule? I can see calling it when it's so far away from the spot that A1 would have to leave the spot to retrieve it, but if it's just bouncing a foot or two outside the spot when B1 grabs it, I'm sticking B with the violation.

And I would argue that it's not failing to throw the ball directly onto the court, but it's leaving the designated spot.