Throw-in

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure, you could defend it if you had to; but I think it's a stretch. As fullor30 points out, you could do the same with a pump fake. You going to call a T at the start of a quarter when the offense lines up at the wrong end of the court with the hopes of luring the defense to the wrong end?

You might be able to stretch the meaning to include this play, but I would expect I'd have a very hard time justifying it to my assignors.

Just because it may be bush league doesn't mean it's a T.

Completely understand which is why I said I think you could justify either...however, the NF has chosen to address only certain situations where you have an action/reaction situation. For instance player along the lane line fakes and causes opponent to enter, you penalize the faker. Of course the Fed cannot possibly (thankfully!) rule on every possible scenario so official judgement is needed, but when an action draws an opponent into a technical foul in the scenario I described, I think they have just raised the level to the point where you could easily go with unsporting...that said would I want to be the one to call it? NO!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Completely understand which is why I said I think you could justify either...however, the NF has chosen to address only certain situations where you have an action/reaction situation. For instance player along the lane line fakes and causes opponent to enter, you penalize the faker. Of course the Fed cannot possibly (thankfully!) rule on every possible scenario so official judgement is needed, but when an action draws an opponent into a technical foul in the scenario I described, I think they have just raised the level to the point where you could easily go with unsporting...that said would I want to be the one to call it? NO!

I was thinking about that rule, but it was originally inclusive of only the shooter when the players along the lane could enter upon the release. It made more sense because players were rightly starting their movement off of the shooter's motion.

With the rebounders, the same concept applies, since they are all trying to prevent each other from getting the ball. They are constantly having to react to one another, and a defender stepping in to fake has very little risk with a good shooter, but potentially great reward as the penalty for a double violation here is really only against the offense.

Neither of these applies to a player setting the ball on the floor during a throwin. That's the same as a player holding the ball in front of the defender but on the OOB side of the plane.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was thinking about that rule, but it was originally inclusive of only the shooter when the players along the lane could enter upon the release. It made more sense because players were rightly starting their movement off of the shooter's motion.

With the rebounders, the same concept applies, since they are all trying to prevent each other from getting the ball. They are constantly having to react to one another, and a defender stepping in to fake has very little risk with a good shooter, but potentially great reward as the penalty for a double violation here is really only against the offense.

Neither of these applies to a player setting the ball on the floor during a throwin. That's the same as a player holding the ball in front of the defender but on the OOB side of the plane.

Very true, difference would be though that you would have a damn hard time determining intent if someone is just holding the ball in front of them....they could just be holding it waiting for someone to come open...esp since if they put it across the line the defender can legally grab it. However, if they put it on the floor the intent is pretty clear...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Very true, difference would be though that you would have a damn hard time determining intent if someone is just holding the ball in front of them....they could just be holding it waiting for someone to come open...esp since if they put it across the line the defender can legally grab it. However, if they put it on the floor the intent is pretty clear...

Not necessarily. He's more likely to disguise it by setting it down, wiping his hands on his uniform, then bending down to pick it back up. He only has 5 seconds, after all, and if he makes his intent obvious then there's no way the defense falls for it.

Frankly, if his intent is that obvious, there's no deceipt. And if the defense falls for this when it's obvious, that's on them.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not necessarily. He's more likely to disguise it by setting it down, wiping his hands on his uniform, then bending down to pick it back up. He only has 5 seconds, after all, and if he makes his intent obvious then there's no way the defense falls for it.

Frankly, if his intent is that obvious, there's no deceipt. And if the defense falls for this when it's obvious, that's on them.

Obvious to an official does not necessarily mean obivous to a player who may or may not know (should know) that it is a tech if they reach across and grab the ball. I'm not trying to give B1 a free pass, all I'm saying is that if A1 attempts to goad B1 into a technical foul and I am certain that is what he/she did, then I think I have pretty solid ground for unsporting tech....if someone passed on that and tech'd B1 instead there is certainly good rules standing for that also...so now I'm done...finally...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Obvious to an official does not necessarily mean obivous to a player who may or may not know (should know) that it is a tech if they reach across and grab the ball. I'm not trying to give B1 a free pass, all I'm saying is that if A1 attempts to goad B1 into a technical foul and I am certain that is what he/she did, then I think I have pretty solid ground for unsporting tech....if someone passed on that and tech'd B1 instead there is certainly good rules standing for that also...so now I'm done...finally...

While I disagree, I think this has been a good discussion. I think the rules standing for this call is weak at best.