Re: Re: I just don't agree
 

They have made a change in the wording to cover the 5 second throw in. It is specific on when it is a straight violation and when you use the 5 second count.

Not once in a lifetime event. I had this play twice last season. Once in a HS game and once in a college game. Also two friends had this play. The real problem to me is not calling it a violation, its me calling it a violation, you a warniing, and someone else a do over. That inconsistency is what will make a coach furious. If we all call it the same they will understand. I would have no problem if they had ruled it a delay warning. The problem there, doing it this way, will end up being too harsh. It is like the swinging of the elbows, a T was too harsh. Now when they do this a second time and you T them, now you are giving the other team points. A straight violation for the elbow swinging and for this throw in violation is a penalty, but not one that give the other team free shots for points.

I think in the long run it is more consistent with the other penalties. Just my two cents, or maybe a buck fifty for those who agree.

Re: Re: Re: I just don't agree
 

Self,
Seems to me I would be more concerned with my players being that "wrong", than what the penalty will be.
mick

Re: Re: Re: I just don't agree
 

Self,
Seems to me I would be more concerned with my players being that "wrong", than what the penalty will be.
mick

Not sure I understand
 

You would be more concerned with your player being wrong than 3 officials calling the same play 3 different ways? Is that what you are saying?

Re: Not sure I understand
 

My player would be able to get it wrong the first time. A second time would be the last time.
Then, I would have a player that wouldn't require the officials to even make dang the call. ;)
mick

Gotcha
 

*

I've been reading this thread with great interest. Last year we led 48-45 with :05 to go. We had a foul to give, and I thought I was clear in the timeout that we'd only foul when the player's back was to the basket. I'm sure you know what's coming next. Yep, we fouled on a three-point attempt with :01 left. Amazingly, the girl (they were the visitors and we had a pretty good crowd) hit all three. Well, on the third attempt the opponents had all four of the shooter's teammates in lane spaces, so I had my PG down in front of my bench all by herself. As the third free throw went through the net, my player grabbed the ball and fired it to the PG, WITHOUT GOING OOB FIRST. This is exactly the play that would make this a problem, because without a whistle, our player would've gotten a shot away before a five-second count would've expired. Fortunately for us, the official blew his whistle and called for a "do-over". We inbounded and went on to win in OT.

Re: Re: Re: I just don't agree
 

Hmmm, the fed rule doesn't help for the college case.

I might see it once a year if I include JH/JV HS games, where I blow it back & everyone has a little chuckle.

I've seen this once *for real* during a summer tourney,
reasonable level of play, courts all over the place, running
clock. It was definitely NOT by design, A1 just got sorta
confused. I blew it back & made him do it right. Not a
word from either side, the kid sorta smiled and looked at me
with puppy dog eyes and quickly glanced over at his coach,
who was shaking his head in mild disbelief.

Since you see this so often, how have you been calling it?

Ok, ok, I stand slightly corrected. (Maybe I "stoop" corrected.) To restate. . . "You attempt a throw-in and you're not OOB, it's a violation". Happy? :p right back at'cha, Tony.

Chuck

Hey, as long as you think the fed is right on this you
haven't been corrected enough. Standing, stooping or sitting down :p

Re: Re: Re: Re: I just don't agree
 

Fed doesn't have to for college....

As for how I have been calling it, I have called it a violation, as it was intended to be called. The clarification in rule 9-2-2 is not a new rule. This is a clarification of an old rule. Meaning this is how it was suppose to be called all along. Now granted before I could see differences of opinion on it, but I felt the rule was clear on this before and even more so now.

If they do this a second time are you going to T the team after the first warning. Or are you going to just warn them again, and if so what rule are you justifying this with?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I just don't agree
 

Not sure what this means.

Quote:

If they do this a second time are you going to T the team after the first warning. Or are you going to just warn them again, and if so what rule are you justifying this with?

If the delay warning is used yes the T comes next.

If you're not OOB, how can it be an attempted throw-in? <img src="http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/sm/chnsaw.gif">

Well, I think it's pretty obvious how, but if you're going to pick microscopic nits, then how about "If you throw the ball to a teammate and you intended to attempt a throw-in, but you're not OOB, it's a violation. I'll get it right. . . you just wait and see. :D

Chuck

I'll get it right. . . you just wait and see. :D

Chuck [/B][/QUOTE]Could you hurry up just a little?According to the acturial tables,I'm out of here in about fifteen years.:D