I don't think it says exactly says that. What it does say is tha if the player reaches across and touches the ball. The referee can't blow the whistle and choose to only penalize the first act by declaring that the ball was dead at the time the player crossed the line...the ball was still live (by interpreation)....they must penalize the entire thing as one action. The ref can't intercept the swat just in time to avoid the T.

However, if the action of crossing and touching are so widely seperated in time that the official clearly blows the whistle before the ball is touched (likely in a second motion or recoil), the player has only touched a dead ball. Case doesn't apply....it is not the same action.

10.3.10D. And, I agree with Camron's wording -- from the case "...it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized."

Here we go...I respectfully respond why does it matter? I apologize if I mistakingly applied others' comments to you. I thought this is what you were saying was the call that you would make, if not my mistake As for the rest of my post it was just talking through the situation to see the different rule applications that COULD be made. Trust me my intention is not to get into a pi**ing contest on this board...

That is the precedent I'm using. The key is whether it bounces so far away from the shooter that he cannot reach it without violating. If he can reach it without leaving the spot, play on and keep counting. I'd use the same reasoning with a throwin. If the ball is still within reach when the defense violates, then it's the defense that violated rather than the offense.

This is my first reply to a post here but I thought I would chime in :-) I think this is pretty simple. Just administer according to the rules. If the ball gets away from the thrower, just keep counting. If you hit five, you have a 5-second violation (I might be tempted to count just a BIT faster though LOL). If you DON'T hit five and the thrower leaves his spot, you have a throw-in violation. So far this is totally easy. And if you DON'T hit five and you DON'T have the thrower-in walk out of the spot, and B reaches through the plane, you have a warning (or T if there has already been a warning).

I mean why would I penalize the A player for KNOWING the rules and not doing the wrong thing. The ball is out of their control but until the time ticks by, there is no violation. Why stop play and "antipate" the call? I can't think of any other time or situation where we are instructed to do this. In fact, the exact opposite of this is true in delayed free-throw violations. If the defender violates, we DON'T stop play and call the violation, instead we let the shooter attempt their shot and only if they miss do we call the defender for violating. I can't think of a SINGLE situation where we are instructed to PREEMPTIVELY anticipate what MIGHT happen and make a call based on that.

As another example of how we never do this anyplace else, say the ball gets loose in the backcourt near the end of a ten-second count and bounds back towards the end line and no one makes a move for it (I know that is far-fetched but for the moment assume it happens). Do you automatically stop play and call the violation because you THINK you will get to ten-seconds? No you wait until you reach 10 seconds (or at least I do).

So while I agree with several other commenters that in this case, there is no real likelihood of anything else happening, in fact there is:

a. As in this case, the defender can do something that "beats" the violation, or
b. The thrower-in can call a timeout.

Since either is a possible action that can happen, I think you just have to let things play out and call the play as it happens. No need to "over-officiate" in this case at all.

Thank you for your comments. I mostly agree. However, I would ask you whether the ball is still at the disposal of the thrower because that is required for granting the team a time-out during a throw-in. ;)

Welcome to the forum.

Right, and also one has to assume the same logic would apply here as applies to the free throw shooter who loses the ball. (Yeah, I know....)