Throw-in
 

A1 is attempting a throw-in. After the ball is at A1's disposal, s/he is bouncing the ball and the ball caroms off A1, the ball stays on the Out of Bounds side of the boundary line. It bounces out of the designated throw-in area. B2 reaches over the line and grabs the ball.:eek:

Ooh, that's a good one.

I'm going to say that this isn't covered in the rules and rule according to what seems fair to me, as authorized by 2-3.

In losing possession before completing the throw-in, A1 would have had to violate, either a 5-second violation or a throw-in violation to go fetch the ball. So I'm going to penalize A for a violation, awarding B the ball at the OOB spot.

I can see arguing the other way: B2 violated by reaching across the plane to get the ball, and B2's violation occurred before A1 had the chance to violate.

But I think A1 screwed up first, even if it wasn't yet a violation, and that was the occasion for B2 violating. I'm disinclined to reward A with another throw in.

Did you construct this, or find it somewhere? Or did it really happen? :eek:

I'd say violation on A as it is the same as passing/bouncing a ball inbounds and having the ball strike OB before entering the court.

To me, this is similar to the RPP play where the official puts the ball on the floor for a throwin for A, and B1 comes running over and steps through and grabs the ball thinking they have the throwin. Violation on B.

In the OP, the player is allowed to dribble the ball during a spot throwin, so until they violate, it's nothing.

I've got a D.O.G. warning for B for reaching across the plane during a throwin.

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.

9-2-10: The opponent of the thrower shall not have any part of his person through the.........plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.

Ball has been released. Not intentionally, I understand. But if the ball has left the designated throw-in spot, there is no way for A1 to legally recover it. I see this either as a legal play by B1 or a violation on A1 for failing to pass the ball directly onto the court.

I believe we have a violation on A1 for not throwing the ball directly onto the court.
Rule 7-6-2.

But not on a throw-in pass.

For me, if the ball is far enough away that A must leave the spot, then it's a violation on A. Otherwise, it's a T on B.

See (new) 9.2.1B, plus the "A1 fumbles the FT" case.

Why did you stop highlighting too early? I fixed it for you. :)

Always listen to bob. While the ball was released, it wasn't released for a pass. "Dribbling" is explicitly allowed. If B1 reached in and stole the dribble, you'd have a T.
If the player started to throw then attempted to pull it back, fumbled, and the ball was bouncing OOB within the throwin spot, wouldn't you allow them to grab it?

Take away the defender reaching across and grabbing it, are you going to call the violation on the thrower?

See post #2. Yes, either 5 seconds or for stepping out of the throw-in spot.

Okay, but the OP says nothing about either of those happening. It says the ball bounced out, but we don't know how far. If, as Bob alludes to, it bounces so far that A would have to violate in order to get to it, I can see the violation being called on A.

If, however, A1 can reach it without moving from the spot (quite possible if the thrower is remotely taller than a squirrel), then it's not a violation until A1 steps too far, the ball goes in bounds, or 5 seconds elapses.

I'm not going to penalize A prematurely simply because B1 committed a violation. A may have recovered otherwise.

The first thing that came to mind, as Bob stated, was the free throw violation case. I have a violation on A1. However, if A1 had the privilege of running the end line, you would have a T on B2.

I have to ask. What's the violation on A? What did he do wrong? Are we assuming here the the ball was so far outside the spot that A would have to leave it to retrieve it?

Yes, you are correct. I was assuming A1 was leaving his/her spot to retrieve the ball.

Gotcha.

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.

Using that logic, in another situation, you'd have to call a T on A1 who does a basic pump fake hoping B1 fouls him.

Caveat Emptor.

Agreed, the onus is on the defender not to reach across.

You don't see an angle by the definition of unsporting foul?

"...noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play"

One could argue that play is not "in the spirit of fair play"....I believe a tech either way could be defended...

I could even think of a situation where a coach might attempt to employ this strategy...down 5 with 1 second left in the game....you aren't getting two shots off in one second obviously, but if you can draw team B into a tech then you could put two on the board with no time coming off...now you have the ball at half court, down 3 with one second left...you have a helluva a lot better chance that B1 will take the bait than you do scoring 5 pts in 1 second otherwise...now I agree that B1 should know better than to reach through, but to me an obvious attempt to draw an opponent into a technical foul should be penalized as unsporting and I believe the definition of unsporting foul allows you that latitude...

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!

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...

Agree. Deceptive ≠ unsporting.

But, deceptive, in some cases, can be considered unsporting.

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...:D

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

That's what I meant, but unfortunately not what I wrote.

If I am up 5 (4 for that matter) with one second, my players are nowhere near the throw in.

We had 2 FTs with 6 seconds left up by 4 . I cleared the lane and had my players stand inbounds by the bench. Not for the reason of the topic, but because I have varsity girls and I've seen plenty of enough dumb things happen. Clock runs out before/if I needed to throw in.

If we're partners and you decide to call a T on that one in close game with seconds to go.............I'm in the parking lot fully dressed with the engine running before you're administering.

I realize it's just forum discussion but in my eye it doesn't come remotely close to any criteria for an unsporting foul that you suggest.

Well, we both know I've done that before.

ok let's think about that for a second though since your right this is just a forum discussion..the situation i described is team A down 5 with 2 seconds to go. for all intents and purposes that game is over. in my scenario i tech team A, how does that do anything to swing the outcome of the game? in your game you tech team B, thereby creating a scenario where a not so close game just got close, and that call has potentially swung the outcome of the game. now we can debate the rules support for either call all day long (which we have), but my call is a hell of a lot less controversial as far as the outcome of the game goes and there is a lot less need to hit the parking lot early...i'm not saying your call would be wrong, but if team A ends up tying the game in regulation and winning in overtime, i think the likelihood of us needing a security escort out is higher in your scenario than me teching team A and team B winning by 7 instead of 5....now of course none of this is any reason to make a call or not make a call when it is the cut and dry correct call, but i think it is a little dramatic to imply that you would have to run from an unsporting T in that situation...again i just go back to "in the spirit of fair play"...can you think of another situation where baiting an opponent into a technical foul would not be a technical foul on the "baiter"?

Good move, but we both know that not all coaches are that smart....and even for those that are, we both know that players don't always do what they are told!

Capitals, periods and paragraphs are your friend.

Geez just had a flashback to 12th grade grammar. However, point taken.

And it's not our job to protect them if they aren't or don't.

If A1 places the ball on the floor and wipes her hands on her shorts, are you going to give her a T? How obvious does it have to be? It's too subjective, IMO, and there's no precedent for calling it this way.

The T on B1 is much easier to explain, and justify, because it's concrete. What's the coach going to say, "she tricked her into it!" Really?

If you see it coming, then hit your whistle as soon as B1 reaches across and give the warning (assuming they haven't burned that already).

For those debating the merits of charging any technical fouls in this situation (thrower purposely places the ball on the floor OOB within the designated throw-in spot and the defender reaches across the boundary plane and grabs the ball), please consider these rules:


10-3-10 A player shall not:... Reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch or dislodge the ball as in 9-2 Penalty 3.

9-2 Penalty 3.
If an opponent(s) of the thrower reaches through the throw-in boundary line plane and touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being passed to a teammate outside the boundary line (as in 7-5-7), a technical foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. See 10-3-10 Penalty.

So, obviously one must consider what constitutes the ball being "in possession of the thrower" when deciding if a technical foul would be proper.

Please carry-on now. ;)

Good point, NV.
D.O.G. warning and that's it. I believe that restriction doesn't end until the ball is released on the throwin pass (heading out in a sec to grab the book and check). That said, if the D.O.G. warning has already been issued to B, you've got the T.

Can't do that. There's a specific case play that if contact is made, you can't give a warning by blowing the whistle early.

Where did I post that?

I respectfully ask at what level do you officiate?

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.

I tried to find this case play and couldn't. Guidance please?

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.

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....)