After all these years - a first!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Based on what?

Common sense. Are you going to allow B1 to bat the ball away so there's a 5-second violation on A?

Once A has the ball, they "posess" it until it's released on an inbounds pass.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Common sense. Are you going to allow B1 to bat the ball away so there's a 5-second violation on A?

Once A has the ball, they "posess" it until it's released on an inbounds pass.

What if A1 fumbles the ball on the out of bounds side, then B1 reaches over and touches the ball?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

What if A1 fumbles the ball on the out of bounds side, then B1 reaches over and touches the ball?

I would still consider him to be in possession.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Common sense. Are you going to allow B1 to bat the ball away so there's a 5-second violation on A?

No, because if they bat the ball away, I'm blowing my whistle for a DOG warning, so that's not an issue.

We can argue about the semantics of "possession" in this instance, but either way, I'm not calling a T in Mark's OP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Common sense. Are you going to allow B1 to bat the ball away so there's a 5-second violation on A?

Once A has the ball, they "possess" it until it's released on an inbounds pass.

Agree. My common sense says to use the same basic concept as player control-"holding or dribbling a live ball".

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree. My common sense says to use the same basic concept as player control-"holding or dribbling a live ball".

Except he's not holding or dribbling

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Except he's not holding or dribbling

Rule 4:
ART. 3 . . . The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.
ART. 4 . . . The throw-in count ends when the ball is released by the thrower so the passed ball goes directly into the court.
Would it contribute to the discussion to mention that once the ball is put at the disposal of the thrower, it's technically in his possession until he releases the ball to go into the court?
Anything the defense does to make contact with the ball while on the other side of the line between those two points of time would seem to justify a T, it seems.

[zm1283]

T

[Mark Padgett]

Guys - does this help? I'm sure we would all agree that if B1 reached over the line while A1 was "dribbling" and fouled him, we would call it intentional. Should the same "reasoning" apply to the T for hitting the ball?

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Guys - does this help? I'm sure we would all agree that if B1 reached over the line while A1 was "dribbling" and fouled him, we would call it intentional. Should the same "reasoning" apply to the T for hitting the ball?

Here's how I have it in my mind:
reach through plane and no contact on thrower or ball-->DOG
reach through plane and hit ball, whether its in the throwers hand or not-->T and first DOG
reach through plane and hit thrower-->IF, and first DOG

Something seems amiss, fire away.

[representing]

Originally Posted by zm1283

T

Well Said. +1

For the age group however, I would use common sense and tell the player not to do that and if he were to do that in a JV or Varsity game, he would most likely get a Technical. At least if I was doing the game.

[bob jenkins]

THere's a case play where A doesn't come out of a huddle after a TO. The official puts the ball on the floor. B crosses the line.

Ruling: B gets a DOG warning, and not a T, but only because A NEVER had the ball.

I read that as, if A EVER has the ball, then it's a T.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree. My common sense says to use the same basic concept as player control-"holding or dribbling a live ball".

Except the rules explicitly say that there is no player control on a throw in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Except the rules explicitly say that there is no player control on a throw in.

It doesn't mean you can't use the precedent to make a ruling on a play not specifically covered by the rules.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Except the rules explicitly say that there is no player control on a throw in.

Player control has nothing to do with this play.

The rule on this play makes no mention of player control.