Throw-in

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Dribbling is ok, and I don't know of any rule against fumbling. This doesn't become a violation, IMO, until the ball bounces in bounds or A1 steps outside the designated spot.

Snaqs,

A1 attempts an inbounds pass and it hits OB before it enters inbounds and you have nothing?

That's what I was getting at and may not have worded it clearly

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Snaqs,

A1 attempts an inbounds pass and it hits OB before it enters inbounds and you have nothing?

That's what I was getting at and may not have worded it clearly

No, I have a violation, but that's not what I have on the OP. He's not attempting to throw an inbounds pass, he's attempting to "dribble" (scare quotes for Nevada's benefit) the ball.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, I have a violation, but that's not what I have on the OP. He's not attempting to throw an inbounds pass, he's attempting to "dribble" (scare quotes for Nevada's benefit) the ball.

I was off on another tangent in a post.

Regarding OP situation, can you liken this to a free throw where A1 fumbles and ball rolls across the free throw line( after securing it from official).............and you have a violation


Wouldn't this be the same as OP, where ball is out of designated area?

Just more food for thought.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

I was off on another tangent in a post.

Regarding OP situation, can you liken this to a free throw where A1 fumbles and ball rolls across the free throw line( after securing it from official).............and you have a violation


Wouldn't this be the same as OP, where ball is out of designated area?

Just more food for thought.

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.

[bleurose]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bleurose

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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....)