Not sure if any one remembers but we had a huge(very long) discussion on the belwo play:

B1 scores a basket and A1 grabs the ball from teh net and immediately throws it to a breaking away A2 running down the court. The problem is A1 never stepped out of bounds for the throw in.

The answers we discussed were the below 3, no consencous on the board and actually no consencous between IAABBO and NFHS and state HS.

The 3 answers:
1.) This is a violation
2.) This is a delay of game warning.
3.) It is a do over, blow your whistle and reset the thrown in.

These were the 3 answers that we all battled with. No need to battle any more.. NFHS has clarified the rule and also put in case study examples.

RULE 9-2-2, Added language that clarifies a throw-in must be made from out of bounds. While a seemingly obvious editorial revision, that clarification reveals intent of the NFHS committee: A throw in by a player is is not out of bounds at teh time results in a VIOLATION... Congrats to all who chose violation back then.

In the case book it goes on and gives the exact above play to further clarify it is a violation. Now there is no confusion......

Self, you had me scared for a moment - I thought you were going to re-open this industrial-sized can of worms.

I think I can safely say that people from all 3 camps are just happy to see that there is an official interpretation, whether we agreed with it in the past or not.

True. There was no right or wrong way to handle it before. You just had to do what you thought was correct or what you were told.

Just a very minor, nit-picking correction here, since the entire basketball world (except those pesky professional women) is taking an afternoon nap this month...

The correct spelling of "consencous" is actually c-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s, although c-o-n-c-e-n-s-u-s is also accepted by many non-Quakers. It is based on the root consent, not census.

Parenthetically, I would just like to hop up on the soap box here for a moment, and point out that the origin of the concept of consensus is in Quaker polity where the goal is to agree about what is the will of God. It was never intended to mean "unanimity" which is how it is usually used today, even among many Quakers. I have seen it attempted both ways, and I feel safe in asserting that the "unanimity" thing is virtually impossible in any group larger than about three people. But agreeing ahead of time to discern and submit to the will of God is an incredible experience when it happens. This is not a sermon or a prescription, just a description of some Quaker history.

Thank You for the correction, by the way......
 

I never said I was a spelling wiz... Just a humble rules expert....haha....

Interesting, but I never saw concensus used to mean unanimous....maybe we need an official ruling or case book play for this! :D

Read again....
 

No one said unanimous. Maybe you could use Webster and see that consensus means an opinion held by ALL or MOST. A general agreement.

So since everyone was saying one of these three. It would be correct to say. "There was no consensus among the group".

Thanks.....

Re: Read again....
 

Self, didn't you see the :D at the end of Dan's post? He's joking about it.

Now, go take your Prozac. :)

Re: Read again....
 

I'll be happy to use Webster if you also promise to reread the thread, in particular pay close attention to Juulie's soapbox "rant" where she claims concensus appears to be used today to strongly imply "unanimity".

And since I'm typing, I'll add that I agree with Tony that practically anything you did on this play was acceptable. Well, anything short of declaring a forfeit or blowing the play dead due to a throw-in violation (in other words I disagree with the NF ruling as you presented it). When, exactly, are we to decide that passing/handing the ball to a team mate who is also inbounds constitues a throw-in? IMO this is exactly the wrong way to handle the play, it should be a delay warning or blown dead & done again properly without comment, depending on the situation.

Re: Re: Read again....
 

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref ....I disagree with the NF ruling as you presented it). When, exactly, are we to decide that passing/handing the ball to a team mate who is also inbounds constitues a throw-in? IMO this is exactly the wrong way to handle the play, it should be a delay warning or blown dead & done again properly without comment, depending on the situation.

Any other rules you want to change in order to make the game correct in your own eyes? :D

Juulie - what's a "polity"?

Re: Re: Read again....
 

In the case book they list about three example of when to blow it a violation and when not to.Your example of tossing to a teammate for a throw in is given. The ruling is to wait and see the result of the throw in and use your judgement if attempt to ignore the rule or to toss to a teammate for a throw-in. I think that this is the correct way to call this personally. If a player is obviously trying to ignore stepping out of bounds to make a legal throw in to gain an advantage, I feel this warrants a violatin and not a warning. Not one of the official warnings listed anyway...

Re: Re: Re: Read again....
 

Nah, the game is mostly fine although I would love to see a rule that prevents coaches from being in the gym when the refs are! :eek:

Seriously, I think when it's crunch time (like A1 makes a full court pass to A2 before going OOB for the throw-in with 3 seconds left in the game) there will be lots of confusion when the violation is called, which is fine, but the real problem is when A1 decides he wants A2 to take the ball out, tosses it to him and there's a whistle for a violation.

It shouldn't happen....
 

Tell your partner to learn the rules......

Re: Re: Read again....
 

First its Paxil, the consensus is it has a more uniform delivery. haha

Secondly, how do you put the message icon in the body of the reply and not in the subject... Thanks in advance BktballRef........

Re: It shouldn't happen....
 

Well, I'm really more concerned with the coach, who's
gonna start yelling "That's a violation! That's a
violation!" And, since there is some level of judgement
involved with a drastic difference in outcome (ignore it or
give the ball to the other team) the fed has turned a once-in-a-lifetime experience into potentially a once-a-game headache.

To include smileys just type the smiley "name" into your message. To see the available smileys click on the Smilies
link listed under "Forum Rules" in the post form, seen at the top of the page you get when you add a post. You'll need to include the colons before & after for the more advanced ones, like :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek:

Have fun :)

Re: Re: It shouldn't happen....
 

I agree, Dan,
If we can judge a shot, and if we can judge a pass, we can certainly judge a throw-in.
And, like you said, mileage may vary.
mick

Re: Re: Re: It shouldn't happen....
 

Kind of reminds you of slapping a T on someone who throws an elbow without hitting someone,doesn't it?Makes ya wonder how many refs are gonna call this one by the book!:eek:

Just wondering
 

I had this exact play in a game. A1 grabbed the ball from teh net and threw to a streaking A2. The intent was to gain an advantage and avoid any delay, that being taking the ball out of bounds properly.. I had no problem calling a violation for an illegal throw in. Coach jumped up and wanted to know what his player did, and I told him. Simple as that.. All in how you handle it as far as the coaches go. I do not understand why anyone would have a problem calling this a violation.

Most refs have no problem calling a T with six men on the court when ussually this is due to our mistake, this could just be an innocent mistake, why pennalize it.... Yet they don't want to call this play when a team is obviously trying to gain an illegal advantage.

I guess I just don't understand.

Re: Just wondering
 

Self,I think you misunderstood what Dan and Mick were telling you.There's no problem calling a violation when a team is trying to take an illegal advantage.The problem does arise when a team does something like this to absolutely NO advantage.It's kinda similar to stepping over the end line on a throw-in when there's no pressure,a foul shooter putting their big toe on the FT line before the ball hits the rim,an offensive player with a foot in the lane when the ball is nowhere near him,etc.-i.e. no advantage/no whistle.

Jurassic I am with ya...
 

Thought he was referring to my situation. My partner told me he would have just had them reset and do over. I asked why, he responded, "it just didn't hurt anything". I said really, what if they did it again. He said, " it just wouldn't happen", I said what if it did. He said, "i would just reset it again... I just laughed and realized who I was working with...

Thanks for you explanation...

Re: Jurassic I am with ya...
 

Well let's see now, team A throws the ball downcourt without
taking it OOB on the throwin after the basket. Your partner
blows the whistle & tells them to do it right. Team A has
lost their advantage, haven't they? If they do it twice
it's a case of poor coaching. Let's try it this way,
the reason why this is a bad interpretation is because it
leaves open the question of when to decide the non-throwin
is actually a throw in. Every coach worth his salt will
be screaming for a throwin violation this December even if
a team merely hesitates after the made basket.

Re: Re: Jurassic I am with ya...
 

Every coach worth his salt will
be screaming for a throwin violation this December even if
a team merely hesitates after the made basket. [/B][/QUOTE]And every referee worth his salt will be screaming back at the coach to STFU.Fair's fair!:D

Re: Re: Re: Jurassic I am with ya...
 

Yeah, sure, but that's the same as it's always been! :D

I just don't agree
 

by the way DanRef thanks for the info on the smiles...

Now back to the discussion. I just don't believe it will be a problem. I have a very good repor with the coaches in the Regions I ref, and the ones I don't know I feel confident in my abilities to explain this call, just like calling a foul or a travel.

As far as when to decide to call it. Just like a foul or a travel, it will be my judgement and understanding of the rules. In the situation a described and easy one to call and defend. In others like it I do not believe I will have trouble telling the diffence between clear advantage and a toss to a teammate to throw in....

Re: I just don't agree
 

As I already said they've turned a once in a lifetime thing
into a once a game annoyance. They attempted to cover a
minute hole in the existing rule and made a mess of it.
IMO. But how about this: this interpretaion is not
consistent with the existing rules, unless they made
"editorial changes" to the rules which provide for 5
seconds to complete a legal throw-in. A delay warning works
because it negates any advantage and it warns a team that
has delayed the game using this tactic either on purpose or
by mistake. Giving the ball to the other team is entirely
too harsh.

Re: I just don't agree
 

Self,I don't think any of us are worrying that you can't tell the difference.You obviously can.I think a whole bunch of us are worrying about the coaches who can't tell the difference in this situation.:D

I don't do this very often, but. . . I told you so!!! :D

You make a throw-in and you're not OOB, it's a violation. This has always seemed like a no-brainer to me. All you folks worried about some coach saying this or wanting that. . . why are you worried? Why is this any different from a coach who doesn't understand the 3-second rule?

Chuck

Because by definition a "throw-in" when you are not OOB is
not a throw-in. You have 5 seconds to do it properly. By
decree the fed has allowed us to declare a non-throw-in to
be a throw in. You're right, it is a no brainer.

If you're not OOB, it's not a throw-in. :p

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

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

Don't you think this is harsher than a violation?

You're already on borrowed time, JR. I don't know how you survived the last meteor impact!! :D

Chuck

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

No, for 2 reasons:

1. They got their warning, if they blatantly do it again it falls under "they got what they deserved"

2. After I fall off this soapbox I'm going to climb on another one entitled "point of interruption". ;)

Seriously, I guess we'll just have to disagree. But IMO the
fed has publicized a hole in the rules concerning a play
that almost *never* happens by design, it's almost always
due to confusion or inexperience, and is rare enough.
Taking the ball away from a team for this is not right, IMO.
But I take comfort in knowing I'm right, because if Chuck
disagrees with me then I can't be wrong!
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/monkbum.gif

I would agree that it doesn't happen often. Also ussually at the less experienced level. At a youth level I will just reset and explain and basically give a do over. I am referring to small children. But at HS varsity and above, they should Know better that is why I have no problem with a violation.

as far as taking the ball away from a team not being right. i don't like giving a T for six men on the court, when I know that I could have prevented it. But I do according to the rules.

As far as the fed publicizing a hole in the rule I disagree. I think it was clear before and is not being interpretted correctly. The fundimental part of the throw in rule is to take the ball out of bounds. When the ball is retrived from the net it is at the disposal of the thrower unless he is tossing to a teammate for the throw in. If he turns to make a throw in up court without going out of bounds he has violated the whole concept of the rule. We will probably just have to disagree on this.

As far as the fed clarifying. They were trying to make the rule used correctly. Just like the discussion this board had on live ball technical for a fight. Rule 10-3-10 as we discussed says be charged with fighting, but that is only if there is no contact it is a technical. A swing and miss is fighting, this is when you call a flagrant T. People ignore the other rules that say to have a technical with contact the ball must be dead and interpret this one rule as fighting is a T. The fed will add to this rule next year that fighting is a T if there is no contact duirng a live ball but the player is charged with fighting. A fight during a live ball is a flagrant personal, but people use this rule incorrectly all the time.

[Edited by Self on Aug 9th, 2002 at 12:30 PM]

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

I can tell that camp is going to be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting!!!

Chuck

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

:D :D :D

Maybe I'll give some kid $20 to do this to you, just to see the look on your face! :eek: (I mean the funky throw-in, not the monkey thing :) )

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

Wow, I'm glad you clarified. You had me worried there for a minute!!