out of bounds pass

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by representing

Then I am confused cause I don't know what anyone is talking about anymore. I simply said that a second throw-in player has to establish an out-of-bounds position in order to be able to throw-in the ball. If he/she jumps from in-bounds and, while in the air, catches the the ball before landing out of bounds, that is a violation.

I am going to bed but I look forward to an explanation of whatever it is you or nevada is talking about. Thank you

It is a violation, but it is not an OOB violation, which would put the ensuing throw-in for the opponent at that spot instead of back at the location from which the throw-in pass was made. That means that you could be on the other side of the basket.

PS What I put in red from your post is also incorrect. Remember that a player has OOB status with one foot inbounds and one foot touching OOB. Would you allow the second player to receive a pass and then make a throw-in from that position?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Note what he highlighted.
Let me provide a play for you:
End line throwin, A1 throws a pass to A2, who is standing in bounds. The ball never crosses the OOB plane, but A2 reaches across while standing in bounds and catches the thrown ball.

You are making this too easy for him. I was trying to get this ACE to think and realize that he doesn't know as much as he thinks that he knows.

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Note what he highlighted.
Let me provide a play for you:
End line throwin, A1 throws a pass to A2, who is standing in bounds. The ball never crosses the OOB plane, but A2 reaches across while standing in bounds and catches the thrown ball.

[QUOTE=Nevadaref;648222]It is a violation, but it is not an OOB violation, which would put the ensuing throw-in for the opponent at that spot instead of back at the location from which the throw-in pass was made. That means that you could be on the other side of the basket.

PS What I put in red from your post is also incorrect. Remember that a player has OOB status with one foot inbounds and one foot touching OOB. Would you allow the second player to receive a pass and then make a throw-in from that position?


.Throw-in violation, 9-2-3 . If A1 is throwing in to A2 who is inbounds (airborne or otherwise) then it's not an endline throw-in, now that you've specified the ball was still on the OOB side (which wasn't originally mentioned). 7-5-7: ... may pass the ball along the endline to a teammate(s) outside the boundary. these qoutes come with my automatic "newbie disclaimer" , I'm sure billymac can provide the appropriate photo.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

Throw-in violation, 9-2-3 . If A1 is throwing in to A2 who is inbounds (airborne or otherwise) then it's not an endline throw-in, now that you've specified the ball was still on the OOB side (which wasn't originally mentioned). 7-5-7: ... may pass the ball along the endline to a teammate(s) outside the boundary. these qoutes come with my automatic "newbie disclaimer" , I'm sure billymac can provide the appropriate photo.

I'm not sure I'm following you here.
Let's go back to the original play:
Endline throwin, A1 has the ball. He throws towards A2 who is trying to get OOB but doesn't make it down in time. The ball stays on the OOB side of the plane the entire time, and A2 jumps from in bounds and catches the ball just before landing OOB.

What is the violation, and why does it matter?

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not sure I'm following you here.
Let's go back to the original play:
Endline throwin, A1 has the ball. He throws towards A2 who is trying to get OOB but doesn't make it down in time. The ball stays on the OOB side of the plane the entire time, and A2 jumps from in bounds and catches the ball just before landing OOB.

What is the violation, and why does it matter?

Athough it's an endline throw in , the conditions haven't been met by teammates being outside the boundary,therefore ( IMO of course) it's an "ordinary" throw in . the violation would be for touching/grabbing the ball while it was out of bounds; 7-6-2 ... shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out of bounds side of the throw in boundary plane . If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball . aren't you 'sposed to give the rookies answers, or questions ?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball .

The difference also matters because it is a throw-in violation. The clock will never start and the spot of the violation is the original throw-in spot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

Athough it's an endline throw in , the conditions haven't been met by teammates being outside the boundary,therefore ( IMO of course) it's an "ordinary" throw in . the violation would be for touching/grabbing the ball while it was out of bounds; 7-6-2 ... shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out of bounds side of the throw in boundary plane . If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball . aren't you 'sposed to give the rookies answers, or questions ?

Whether it's an end line throw-in or a spot throw-in is determined by what the players are allowed to do rather than what they actually do. If A1 grabs the ball, steps out and throws it in immediately, it was still an end line throw-in.

Back to the point, though. Let me ask the question this way:
Is it a throw-in violation, or an OOB violation? Why does it matter?

[Upward ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Whether it's an end line throw-in or a spot throw-in is determined by what the players are allowed to do rather than what they actually do. If A1 grabs the ball, steps out and throws it in immediately, it was still an end line throw-in.

Back to the point, though. Let me ask the question this way:
Is it a throw-in violation, or an OOB violation? Why does it matter?

I knew that was going to be the question, Nevada gave me a hint earlier in this thread that that might be the focus. I'll study it at work later ( don't cross any railroad tracks today without looking twice today !) My initial reaction , i'm sticking with throw-in violation where A2 jumped out /reached through , ball to B1 for a throw in at that spot, maybe ! .

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Upward ref

Athough it's an endline throw in , the conditions haven't been met by teammates being outside the boundary,therefore ( IMO of course) it's an "ordinary" throw in . the violation would be for touching/grabbing the ball while it was out of bounds; 7-6-2 ... shall not touch a teammate while it is on the out of bounds side of the throw in boundary plane . If it's a violation, it matters because you're loosing the ball . aren't you 'sposed to give the rookies answers, or questions ?

Correct, except for your spelling of "losing."

Originally Posted by Upward ref

I knew that was going to be the question, Nevada gave me a hint earlier in this thread that that might be the focus. I'll study it at work later ( don't cross any railroad tracks today without looking twice today !) My initial reaction , i'm sticking with throw-in violation where A2 jumped out /reached through , ball to B1 for a throw in at that spot, maybe ! .

Good, the point is that it is a throw-in violation, not a legal throw-in, and the ensuing throw-in will come from the original throw-in spot, in this case from where the ball was thrown.

Originally Posted by Welpe

The difference also matters because it is a throw-in violation. The clock will never start and the spot of the violation is the original throw-in spot.

Actually, the clock should start and then quickly stop on the whistle as the touching itself is legal, meaning the contact was not made with the leg or a fist. It is just the location of that touching which is illegal. This is a subtle point and was clarified a couple of years ago when the NFHS committee added the word "legally" to the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Correct, except for your spelling of "losing."


Good, the point is that it is a throw-in violation, not a legal throw-in, and the ensuing throw-in will come from the original throw-in spot, in this case from where the ball was thrown.


Actually, the clock should start and then quickly stop on the whistle as the touching itself is legal, meaning the contact was not made with the leg or a fist. It is just the location of that touching which is illegal. This is a subtle point and was clarified a couple of years ago when the NFHS committee added the word "legally" to the rule.

I don't think that was the actual conclusion. I believe it was that when the touch is illegal the clock should not start and, if it does, should be restored to the original time. The converse it not automatically true. I really don't think it said the clock should start if the touching were legal but in an illegal location. It just said that it was not a timing error if it does start in those cases.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think that was the actual conclusion. I believe it was that when the touch is illegal the clock should not start and, if it does, should be restored to the original time. The converse it not automatically true. I really don't think it said the clock should start if the touching were legal but in an illegal location. It just said that it was not a timing error if it does start in those cases.

Either it is proper for the clock to start in a situation or it isn't. There is no middle ground. If it wouldn't be a timing error if the clock does start and the officials would not reset the clock, then that is because it was proper for it to start according to the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Either it is proper for the clock to start in a situation or it isn't. There is no middle ground. If it wouldn't be a timing error if the clock does start and the officials would not reset the clock, then that is because it was proper for it to start according to the rule.

No, it is "acceptable" for the clock to start but it is not required. Therefore, "should" is not the correct word. May start and shall start are two different things.

In the case where the initial touch being illegal (kick), the clock shall NOT start. But in other cases, it MAY start but it is possible that the play is blown dead before it starts.

If the official blows the whistle either before indicating time should start or in absense of indicating time shoud start (seeing that the initial touch is also a violation), then the clock will not start...and that is entirely proper. It is not an error. If an official starts the clock and another blows it dead for anything other than a throwin violation/illegal touch the clock MAY legally run for a short period of time...but it not a timing error if it does not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it is "acceptable" for the clock to start but it is not required. Therefore, "should" is not the correct word. May start and shall start are two different things.

In the case where the initial touch being illegal (kick), the clock shall NOT start. But in other cases, it MAY start but it is possible that the play is blown dead before it starts.

If the official blows the whistle either before indicating time should start or in absense of indicating time shoud start (seeing that the initial touch is also a violation), then the clock will not start...and that is entirely proper. It is not an error. If an official starts the clock and another blows it dead for anything other than a throwin violation/illegal touch the clock MAY legally run for a short period of time...but it not a timing error if it does not.

Camron,
I'm going to disagree. I don't believe that your opinion can be supported by the rules.
I believe that what you contend here, "If the official blows the whistle either before indicating time should start or in absense of indicating time shoud start..." is a mistake on the part of the official and that the timer is authorized BY RULE to start the clock. It is a case of the official neglecting to signal.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, the clock should start and then quickly stop on the whistle as the touching itself is legal, meaning the contact was not made with the leg or a fist. It is just the location of that touching which is illegal. This is a subtle point and was clarified a couple of years ago when the NFHS committee added the word "legally" to the rule.

Do you have a citation? I'm not doubting you per se but the concept of the same act that both starts the stops the clock would result in time being run off doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron,
I'm going to disagree. I don't believe that your opinion can be supported by the rules.
I believe that what you contend here, "If the official blows the whistle either before indicating time should start or in absense of indicating time shoud start..." is a mistake on the part of the official and that the timer is authorized BY RULE to start the clock. It is a case of the official neglecting to signal.

When a player catches the ball on the OOB side of the throwin plane on a spot throwin, do you chop time in and then blow the whistle and raise your arm again? Or do you blow the whistle and keep your arm up?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by camron rust

when a player catches the ball on the oob side of the throwin plane on a spot throwin, do you chop time in and then blow the whistle and raise your arm again? Or do you blow the whistle and keep your arm up?

+1