out of bounds pass
 

After a made basket when a player is able to run the end line to inbound the ball can they also pass to another player who is also out of bounds and then that player pass the ball into play. I vaguely remember this as an old trick play to beat a full court press.

Yes, player has to step out of bounds first before receiving a pass. If player is in the air and receives the pass before landing out of bounds, it's a legal throw-in and the player stepped out of bounds.

Check out 7-5-7.

Maybe just smart basketball. I don't know about others, but I seldom see this play utilized.

Totally legal, and remember the defense cannot touch the ball unless it crosses the plane of the OOB line.

Are you sure about that? Let's specify that the passed ball remains on the OOB side of the end line boundary.

player's last established position is in-bounds. It's just like backcourt. If ball is passed to a player who was in the FC, you would call BC even if the ball never broke the half-line boundary.

EDIT: I got what you're asking me. Ok, maybe not a legal throw-in but it is a violation because player's last established position was in-bounds.

Please take some time to carefully examine what I specified and think about it. When you have given it due consideration, post your response. You may learn something.

Nope, you have the wrong reason, and that is the point which I am trying to get you to understand.

ok, then explain to me why this would not be a violation if a player jumps from in-bounds and catches the ball before landing out of bounds...

Watched the Denver U v Seattle U game a few weeks back and Denver used this play extensively in the last minutes of the ball game.

As long as you have the question wrong, you won't get the answe right. That's not what he's saying.

It wasn't just the last minutes of the game, it was throughout the game that Denver U. used the 2-person OOB plays.

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

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.

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?

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. ;)

[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.:)

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 ?:)

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.

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 ! . :cool:

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.

:confused:

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.

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.

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.

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

The correct mechanic is the former, but I would guess that most people incorrectly do the latter. Of course, that doesn't make it right.

So what is your point--that most people do this wrong?

In regard to timing the situation, it is no different from A1 making a throw-in pass from behind the end line which is first touched by A2 at the division line while he has one foot touching OOB.

I am in the group that incorrectly does it. Why is it proper in this situation to chop the time in when the ball becomes dead?

Because the rule, 5-9-4, states that the clock shall be restarted when the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. That player can be either inbounds or out-of-bounds. The clock should start on that touching and then stop as soon as the official blows the whistle for the violation. Never starting it isn't proper according to the rule.

Where is the definition of "on the court" other than 4-13 Court Areas, which clearly does not include out of bounds.

9-2-2 "...is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court..."

:D

I've always had the thinking that the clock only starts either when I see the ball is inbounds with player dribbling or passing, or the official says to start the clock.

No offense, but that's because you aren't an official and don't know much about the rules.

Here is the relevant passage for your edification:

RULE 5,SECTION 9 RE-STARTING THE CLOCK
ART. 1 . . . After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official
signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the
clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out.
ART. 2 . . . If play is started or resumed by a jump, the clock shall be started
when the tossed ball is legally touched.
ART. 3 . . . If a free throw is not successful and the ball is to remain live, the
clock shall be started when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court.
ART. 4 . . . If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the
ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by
the thrower.

I've been watching the officials more so since I started posting on here. So I'm slowly learning to not always do what I think I know is right to doing as instructed.

I used to have more a trigger finger when it came to starting/stopping the clock, but have slowed that down to wait for the signal.

9-2-2 deals with the throw-in provisions exclusively. The above statement is one of the requirements necessary to avoid this violation only. If the player in question who touches the ball is out of bounds, this is a violation in 9-3-2, which also deals with the throw-in pass. This tells me that the ball was not "legally touched."

Yep, and we are discussing a throw-in play.
True.
And you would be incorrect about that as well. :(


2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

Nevada, you're so far in left field its funny. You're citing rules that have nothing at all to do with how/when the clock starts. For you "on the court" definition, how about you cite the rule on LGP that inidicates that "on the court" means inbounds? That would be equally relevant. :rolleyes:

The clock starting/stopping rules have nothing to do with the rules for what makes a legal throwin.

If the initial contact is also simultaneous with a violation, the correct procedure, if both the throw-in and violation are being covered by the same officials, is for the official to whistle and indicate by keeping the hand raised that the ball has become dead and the clock should not start. It is just plain dumb to chop time in after you see a violation as the ball is already dead. Why would you start the clock after a violation?

I do not believethat to be the correct reference to use. 9.2.2 would indicate that is a legal throw in, but the violation occurs because the player is now out of bounds.

I believe the correct rule to look at would be 9-2-3, which indicates the thrown ball shall not be touched by a teammate of the thrower while the ball is on the out-of-bounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane (i.e. an illegal touch).

Just read this thread ...
 

Yup ... the whole thing. I'm really quite tired now. For our next topic, could we take up something simple like relationships between men and women, or maybe memorizing Pi to a million digits.

Your condescending tone is unbecoming, even when you're right.

In this case, I agree with Camron. Nothing you quote here supports your position.

Actually, it does. The point that I was trying to make is that the touching by the player whether he is inbounds or out of bounds is a legal touching. It is the location of that touching which is illegal and the cause of the violation. This is very different from the first contact being a kick or punch of the ball.

The reason that this concept is relevant to the clock/timing rules is that in 2007-08 the NFHS added the word "legally" to BOTH the rule on how a throw-in ends (4-42-5) AND the rule when the clock starts following a throw-in (5-9-4).

As we know this was done primarily because of the AP arrow. By adding the word "legally" to 4-42-5, the NFHS made it so that an illegal touch (kick, fist, etc.) did not cause the throw-in to end, and thus would not reverse the arrow. By adding the word "legally" the NFHS also made it so that the clock would not start in these situations. However, on a legal touching the throw-in ends, the arrow is reversed, and the clock would start as that is exactly what the wording of the rule says.

That same season the NFHS published a few play rulings to clarify what constituted legal touchings and what did not. It was made clear that a player standing OOB and touching the ball in an otherwise legal manner (not kicking it or striking it with a fist) had contacted the ball "legally" causing the throw-in to end and committed an OOB violation. This was the play ruling which I cited for the two of you. With it I was making the point to you that if one follows the logic behind the NFHS rulings, one will conclude that the clock does not start on illegal touchings, but does on legal touchings. Therefore, although play may be immediately whistled dead and the clock stopped, it still should be started on the touch.

In short, if you would reverse the arrow if the throw-in were an AP throw-in, then you should start the clock on the touching, but if the touching would prevent the AP arrow from being reversed, then the clock should not start on the play.

Simply put, you're wrong (half wrong anyway....you have the part about the illegal touch correct).

You're reading way to much into the rule. This rule is written assuming the remainder of the situation is not complicated by another infraction.

The rule says the clock starts when the ball is legally touched. Fine. But another rule says the clock should be stopped (or not started) because of the violation that happens EXACTLY at the same time. Therefore, it is valid for it to not start.

All this makes perfect sense............except the part where you think the clock should start on a violation which makes the ball dead. Why can you not just believe that the changes were made to clarify when a throw-in has ended, with the change of the AP being the primary concern.

There are some assumptions made in the books which are problematic, some of which are later clarified. I think the assumption that most would know that the clock does not start on a violation which causes the ball to be immediately dead is not unreasonable.

now we're back to where i came in, before it got way past me. As I try to get up to speed on timers/clocks; can endline priveleges still be retained when talking about AP situations ?

I'm not aware of any situation involving an AP throw-in that would include an end-line throw-in.

I think I understand your question, but I'm sure somebody will set me straight if I don't. I cannot think of any situation where an AP throw-in is not a designated spot throw-in. And I cannot think of any situation where a team is allow to run the baseline, something happens that results in an AP throw-in, and the team that gets the throw-in (which would have to be the original throwing team) is allowed to retain the privilege of running the end line.

So I'd have to say, no.

thanks, I just swerved a little when the AP arrow part came in to the thread.